Augustine's view
God = Eternal Truth
|
|
V
The Soul = Human Reason
|
|
V
The Body
The Soul and the Body are distinct substances
Augustine's Platonism involves the background assumption that the lower concept affect or control the higher. The higher eternal truth from God illuminates our mind, soul. This raises two issues for him.
1. It looks as though the minds must actively grasp something higher than itself when it understands and knows eternal truths. Doesn't this contradict the above background assumption? No, says St. Augustine. God is active in your understanding s of things. Divine illumination is necessary if humans are to understand eternal truths. Your natural powers of reason are ineffective.
2. In Augustine's time, sensation was understood to be a bodily phenomenon. But it affects the mind. Doesn't that contradict the same background assumption mentioned earlier? How does sensation work?
Augustine says that the sensory events of the body don't, contrary to what one might expect, effect the mind. Rather the mind actively looks and tells takes notice of these bodily events without being affected. The mind isn't made to do this.
Boethius
Roman patrician, high in the administration of Ostrogothic King Theodoric. Ostrogoths were Arians. Boethius was Catholic. Cyprian accused a fellow senator of Boethius of treason, of conspiring with the Eastern Emperor Justin to overthrow Theodoric. Boethius defending Albions and use implicated in the plot. So he was thrown in prison where he wrote The Consolation of Philosophy - largely Platonic
Everyone in the middle ages read this. It has been described as encapsulating what it means to be a medieval. (Interestingly, no explicit mention of Christianity)
('edifying')
He was responsible (by his translations into Latin) for the survival in the Latin West for at least some knowledge of Aristotle. He translated the following of Aristotle:
1. Categories - wrote one commentary on this
2. De Interpretation - wrote two commentaries on this
(see gretta's/elo's/pips notes)
Monday, 30 March 2009
His201 - lect2 - wk 5
Charlemagne's challenge
There was a problem of unity in the Roman Empire due to language differences
as such Charlemagne sought to improve literacy - raising literacy levels - he was not on some sort of mission for the love of education, or art for the love of art, or language for the love of language, he wanted higher levels of literacy to create lines of communication for political/economical reasons. He also wanted higher levels of literacy for religious reasons, he wanted people to be able to read and speak of the faith.
Pippin III - greater organisation of Church hierarchy in Francia during 740s and 75s (more bishoprics; distinct boundaries)
Pippin's brother, Carloman, ran off to become a monk - as such religion was a hot topic for these (well off) people
The Church was increasingly reforming its structures, becoming more efficient and becoming more self aware of its potential and its power. This is revealed in many places, one place is in the letters of Boniface - the bishop of mains - the first bishop who coronated Pippin. Talk about establishing boundaries, dioceses, hierarchy of Arch Bishops and their relationship to bishops. Never before had this talk happened. This indicates the existence of a policy by pippin of promoting the reform of the Church simultaneously with the interests of his kingdom in mind.
The Donation of Constantine refers to a document which was brought out in the middle of the 8th century, believed to have been used around this time, that suggested that Constantine grant the papacy complete autony, ownership in fact, over the lands in Western Europe, and that is argued why Constantine packed his bags and went to Constantinople. Now of course this didn't happen this way, Constantine set up his capital in Constantinople for very different reasons. There wasn't that level of autonomy at all. And thus this document is a forgery, produced by somebody in the court of the papacy, to suggest the power and authority of the papacy was over and above the power of any emperor. It doesn't deny the emperor his rule, it simply re-enforces his rule, as he must be approved by the papacy.
This makes it much easier for us to understand Charlemagne's reign.
A capitulary is a written instruction sent to administrators, counts, dukes, bishops. The receivers of these letters are generally called Missi. We don't really know if these capitularies were very important, or if they were ignored, as there were many of them. They reveal a lot of Charlemagne's interests and priorities. 769 capitulary for the Aquitanians 779 capitulary for Herstal - outlines an agreement between Charles, his counts and his bishops, about social harmony. Again it's more evidence of Charles' interests in administering his church through clerical officers.
Capitularies to the Saxons (775-790) Showed his idea about the importance of the Church
Capitularies are short statements of the law.
Charles wanted to create social order using the Church as an instrument. He (like his fore-fathers) considered the interest and the mission of the Church to be the same as those of the Francs, to maintain social order and discipline.
792: Plot to overthrow Charlemagne - by Pippin the Hunchback - Concerned by this Charles made all officials in his kingdom, counts, dukes, clerics, swear an oath of allegiance to him. Meanwhile he made his Bishops say special masses for the prosperity of the king and kingdom. Not only was Charles anointed by the Pope but he saw the Church as an important instrument in maintaining social order. For Charles, the maintenance of social order also incorporated a literacy program. Again, this goes back well before the attempted coo, well before the ordination, we see clues about his general interest in literacy and literature.
Fardulf; Peter of Pisa, were imported to Charles' court as they were good poets and great teachers of grammar. We also have paul the deacon, a noted poet of the lombard court, and a monk. He came to the court to convince Charles to release his brother who was caught in a battle. Theodulf arrived from Spain around the same time as Peter. And he wrote about Charles, and as such was rewarded with the position as Bishop of Orleans in the year 800. Finally, perhaps the most important, another goth of the anglo variety now settled in England, educated at York, was Alcuin. He is significant because he became Charles' teacher of rhetoric and astronomy.
Charles equates a morally virtuous life with an educated life. Charles' message to his Missi was to raise there literacy levels to a point where the can appreciate the bible, important religious documents so that they may live a holy life.
It is obvious that Charles inherited this ideal from his father and paralleled his empire's interests with that of the Church and this was undoubtedly embedded in his psyche.
The Carolingian renaissance, if we can call it that, was short lives, Charlemagne died and left doubts about his succession, about the Frankish alliance. He had many children, but by the time he died he had only one surviving son - who was the only possible successor to the throne and that was Louis the Pious. Despite the appearance of continuity, the franks began their decline, it is even argued that the Frankish decline started durign the latter years of Charlemagne's reign. Louis did not expand the kingdom, the economy slowed down during his reign. He struggled to establish the same sense of loyalty his father had with his ancestors. As such there are questions of successorship and sorting out loyalties.
Ethinicity of the Frankish empire not united.
These two points are pretty obvious.
However this next one, is a bit contentious.
Economical slow down due to Islamic dominance in the Mediterranean Sea (Pirenne)
What could have happened is that Western Europe was isolated. Therefore the economy suffered, regardless of the policies Charles put in place, this was, according to Pirenne, never going to last.
793: Oath of allegiance
800: Imperial Coronation
802: Admonitio generalis
Synod of Ver (755)
Interests of the Church were combined with the interests of the Crown
There was a problem of unity in the Roman Empire due to language differences
as such Charlemagne sought to improve literacy - raising literacy levels - he was not on some sort of mission for the love of education, or art for the love of art, or language for the love of language, he wanted higher levels of literacy to create lines of communication for political/economical reasons. He also wanted higher levels of literacy for religious reasons, he wanted people to be able to read and speak of the faith.
Pippin III - greater organisation of Church hierarchy in Francia during 740s and 75s (more bishoprics; distinct boundaries)
Pippin's brother, Carloman, ran off to become a monk - as such religion was a hot topic for these (well off) people
The Church was increasingly reforming its structures, becoming more efficient and becoming more self aware of its potential and its power. This is revealed in many places, one place is in the letters of Boniface - the bishop of mains - the first bishop who coronated Pippin. Talk about establishing boundaries, dioceses, hierarchy of Arch Bishops and their relationship to bishops. Never before had this talk happened. This indicates the existence of a policy by pippin of promoting the reform of the Church simultaneously with the interests of his kingdom in mind.
The Donation of Constantine refers to a document which was brought out in the middle of the 8th century, believed to have been used around this time, that suggested that Constantine grant the papacy complete autony, ownership in fact, over the lands in Western Europe, and that is argued why Constantine packed his bags and went to Constantinople. Now of course this didn't happen this way, Constantine set up his capital in Constantinople for very different reasons. There wasn't that level of autonomy at all. And thus this document is a forgery, produced by somebody in the court of the papacy, to suggest the power and authority of the papacy was over and above the power of any emperor. It doesn't deny the emperor his rule, it simply re-enforces his rule, as he must be approved by the papacy.
This makes it much easier for us to understand Charlemagne's reign.
A capitulary is a written instruction sent to administrators, counts, dukes, bishops. The receivers of these letters are generally called Missi. We don't really know if these capitularies were very important, or if they were ignored, as there were many of them. They reveal a lot of Charlemagne's interests and priorities. 769 capitulary for the Aquitanians 779 capitulary for Herstal - outlines an agreement between Charles, his counts and his bishops, about social harmony. Again it's more evidence of Charles' interests in administering his church through clerical officers.
Capitularies to the Saxons (775-790) Showed his idea about the importance of the Church
Capitularies are short statements of the law.
Charles wanted to create social order using the Church as an instrument. He (like his fore-fathers) considered the interest and the mission of the Church to be the same as those of the Francs, to maintain social order and discipline.
792: Plot to overthrow Charlemagne - by Pippin the Hunchback - Concerned by this Charles made all officials in his kingdom, counts, dukes, clerics, swear an oath of allegiance to him. Meanwhile he made his Bishops say special masses for the prosperity of the king and kingdom. Not only was Charles anointed by the Pope but he saw the Church as an important instrument in maintaining social order. For Charles, the maintenance of social order also incorporated a literacy program. Again, this goes back well before the attempted coo, well before the ordination, we see clues about his general interest in literacy and literature.
Fardulf; Peter of Pisa, were imported to Charles' court as they were good poets and great teachers of grammar. We also have paul the deacon, a noted poet of the lombard court, and a monk. He came to the court to convince Charles to release his brother who was caught in a battle. Theodulf arrived from Spain around the same time as Peter. And he wrote about Charles, and as such was rewarded with the position as Bishop of Orleans in the year 800. Finally, perhaps the most important, another goth of the anglo variety now settled in England, educated at York, was Alcuin. He is significant because he became Charles' teacher of rhetoric and astronomy.
Charles equates a morally virtuous life with an educated life. Charles' message to his Missi was to raise there literacy levels to a point where the can appreciate the bible, important religious documents so that they may live a holy life.
It is obvious that Charles inherited this ideal from his father and paralleled his empire's interests with that of the Church and this was undoubtedly embedded in his psyche.
The Carolingian renaissance, if we can call it that, was short lives, Charlemagne died and left doubts about his succession, about the Frankish alliance. He had many children, but by the time he died he had only one surviving son - who was the only possible successor to the throne and that was Louis the Pious. Despite the appearance of continuity, the franks began their decline, it is even argued that the Frankish decline started durign the latter years of Charlemagne's reign. Louis did not expand the kingdom, the economy slowed down during his reign. He struggled to establish the same sense of loyalty his father had with his ancestors. As such there are questions of successorship and sorting out loyalties.
Ethinicity of the Frankish empire not united.
These two points are pretty obvious.
However this next one, is a bit contentious.
Economical slow down due to Islamic dominance in the Mediterranean Sea (Pirenne)
What could have happened is that Western Europe was isolated. Therefore the economy suffered, regardless of the policies Charles put in place, this was, according to Pirenne, never going to last.
793: Oath of allegiance
800: Imperial Coronation
802: Admonitio generalis
Synod of Ver (755)
Interests of the Church were combined with the interests of the Crown
Lit201 - Lect 1 - Week 5
The pardoners tale is divided into (1) introduction/transition (2) a prologue [41-174] and a (3) tale.
the tale is divded into 3 parts.
i) 175-373
ii) 374-630 (he tells the story of a fate of 3 young men who encounter a personified death)
iii) 631-680 (epilogue) (in part 3 we are brought out of the story into the present where the pardoner has a run in with the host - and a reconciliation full of irony)
the cake he wants to eat is 'flat bread' more than a hint here of an illusion to the mass. a most disturbing one on the part of the pardoner. it is also worth noting the irony that the pardoner himself is playfully aware, that the pardoner calls for a beer before launching into a diatribe about drunkenness.
The pardoner takes the role of the physician.
The boy personifies death - he confuses his mother's wisdom - she said be prepared for death - and now he thinks that he should always be prepared for a man called death - it's actually just a disease but he's taking it personally thinking that somebody is going around killing everyone. And now these three drunken idiots have made an oath and they are going to go out and find this person called death and kill him - it's humorous and also profound that there is only one conqueror of death and that is Christ. These men and the boy are too literal minded. These three are almost like a mock version of the trinity - but of course they are the opposite they are divided as we will see.
the tale is divded into 3 parts.
i) 175-373
ii) 374-630 (he tells the story of a fate of 3 young men who encounter a personified death)
iii) 631-680 (epilogue) (in part 3 we are brought out of the story into the present where the pardoner has a run in with the host - and a reconciliation full of irony)
the cake he wants to eat is 'flat bread' more than a hint here of an illusion to the mass. a most disturbing one on the part of the pardoner. it is also worth noting the irony that the pardoner himself is playfully aware, that the pardoner calls for a beer before launching into a diatribe about drunkenness.
The pardoner takes the role of the physician.
The boy personifies death - he confuses his mother's wisdom - she said be prepared for death - and now he thinks that he should always be prepared for a man called death - it's actually just a disease but he's taking it personally thinking that somebody is going around killing everyone. And now these three drunken idiots have made an oath and they are going to go out and find this person called death and kill him - it's humorous and also profound that there is only one conqueror of death and that is Christ. These men and the boy are too literal minded. These three are almost like a mock version of the trinity - but of course they are the opposite they are divided as we will see.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
the201 - wk4 - lect2
The Sacraments
(the 7 sacraments) and types of sacraments.
rituals are important obviously. Protestant critics would say that Catholics are ritualistic in the pejorative sense.
There is the idea that sacraments are like magic: what are the words of consecration? "This is my body" Hoc. There have been lots of cruel things said about Catholics through the ages, and one of the first terms in the polemic between Protestants and Catholics was HOCus pocus. So taht is a derogatory term about what Catholics do at mass.
There can be no dichotomy between word and sacrament.
Scientism itself has not answered all the quandaries of human existence.
A culture that is 'in your face' with no regard for the divine sacraments. No subtlety, nothing left to the imagination.
The sacraments enable us to know and encounter the god who is transcendent, they provide a mediation which allows us to have a capacity to understand Him. The sacraments aren't added on to our nature, they don't replace our nature, they are something which in God's providence that was always going to be given to us. The Catechism, 11:49, 52, the Church sancitifies, purifies, elevates and integrates human things. The sacraments are not a reminder or mere representation of an absent God. They are the work of God who makes himself available to his people. They are not things we do to remind ourselves of God. They are God's work.
The sacramental principle: That God's presence is given to us through mediation of events. Jesus knew that the only worth being concerned about was the salvation of one's soul - but he used images to (Matt:25 - fishing nets, coins, gates, sheep) to convey this message, they point to some hidden reality, some inner truth. We see in Jesus' ministry the importance of touch. He left us the greatest sign of all, the cross, which was to become the sign of humanity. And he ordered his apostles to be baptised, which uses water.
There is a sense in which we can, talk about 'creation', in which God created himself through universal reality.
Old testament sacraments: Circumcision, the offering of the pascal lamb at the pass-over, a way of experiencing, in some way, the reality of what had happened before.
Christ being the primordial sacrament. The Church being a sacrament.
In another sense, sacramental is deeper than symbolic. It's ambivalent. You feel two things. Sacraments are polyvalent. Signs of divine love, cross-roads between heaven and earth. And also, they give you, particular things, the effects of the sacrament which enable you to continue your pilgrimage.
Sacraments are like food and water along a huge run... they keep you going on the straight road.
(the 7 sacraments) and types of sacraments.
rituals are important obviously. Protestant critics would say that Catholics are ritualistic in the pejorative sense.
There is the idea that sacraments are like magic: what are the words of consecration? "This is my body" Hoc. There have been lots of cruel things said about Catholics through the ages, and one of the first terms in the polemic between Protestants and Catholics was HOCus pocus. So taht is a derogatory term about what Catholics do at mass.
There can be no dichotomy between word and sacrament.
Scientism itself has not answered all the quandaries of human existence.
A culture that is 'in your face' with no regard for the divine sacraments. No subtlety, nothing left to the imagination.
The sacraments enable us to know and encounter the god who is transcendent, they provide a mediation which allows us to have a capacity to understand Him. The sacraments aren't added on to our nature, they don't replace our nature, they are something which in God's providence that was always going to be given to us. The Catechism, 11:49, 52, the Church sancitifies, purifies, elevates and integrates human things. The sacraments are not a reminder or mere representation of an absent God. They are the work of God who makes himself available to his people. They are not things we do to remind ourselves of God. They are God's work.
The sacramental principle: That God's presence is given to us through mediation of events. Jesus knew that the only worth being concerned about was the salvation of one's soul - but he used images to (Matt:25 - fishing nets, coins, gates, sheep) to convey this message, they point to some hidden reality, some inner truth. We see in Jesus' ministry the importance of touch. He left us the greatest sign of all, the cross, which was to become the sign of humanity. And he ordered his apostles to be baptised, which uses water.
There is a sense in which we can, talk about 'creation', in which God created himself through universal reality.
Old testament sacraments: Circumcision, the offering of the pascal lamb at the pass-over, a way of experiencing, in some way, the reality of what had happened before.
Christ being the primordial sacrament. The Church being a sacrament.
In another sense, sacramental is deeper than symbolic. It's ambivalent. You feel two things. Sacraments are polyvalent. Signs of divine love, cross-roads between heaven and earth. And also, they give you, particular things, the effects of the sacrament which enable you to continue your pilgrimage.
Sacraments are like food and water along a huge run... they keep you going on the straight road.
Monday, 23 March 2009
phi201 - wk4
Last remarks on 'mystical' Platonists
For those in the mystical tradition, no categories or characteristics can truly ba attributed to God Beyond Being.
A consequence is than, any real awareness of God must be non-conceptual. This brings us to an element of Neoplatonism I've not emphasized before: the process of emanation is to be followed by a return to the One. The soul should turn away from the world of sense (as described before) but also a way from the world of intellect, to find its true home. This makes the picture mystical. So the highest goal is ecstas, escstatic union with the One. This is a form of awareness (or lack of awareness) above sensory knowledge, but also above conceptual knowledge of forms (which Platinus called reason). Also above intellectual self-knowledge. Platinus claimed to have experienced this ecstasy at various time. And on his deathbed he said "The divine in me returns to the divine in the universe."
The idea is that not only should you strive to return to the One, but that all souls will eventually return. (The One is alpha and omega). Fits with Aristotle's idea of God as both efficient and final cause.
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria before him, likened this procession (proodus) and return (apistrophe) to the Fall and Redemption of Mankind.
This unorthodox element is the idea that all will be saved. This is apocatastasis.
This brings us to the John Scattus Eriusgenn (wrong spelling). Lived after 800. He knew Greek and wrot ethe only genuine philosophical work for some 100's of years after Boethius. Learned Greek through Irish monasteries which were the only places where Greek was still known in this period. JS was himself Irish and his name means Josh the scion of Ireland. Very influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius and translated much of that writing. Major original work called the Periphyseon. Literally: 'About nature'. aka De Devisione Natura 'Visions of Nature'. (N.B JSE means by 'nature' all of existence, and not just the sensible world. ) Periphyseon is a genuine philosophical system, but we'll just look at a few themes.
JSE is very enthusiastic about Negative Theology
See first JSE quote
He is enthusiastic about something that sounds like pantheism, i.e. an identification of God with His creation. See quote 2 of JSE
"So, when we hear that God makes all things we ought to understand nothing else than that God is in all thing, that He is the essence of all things".
Whether this amounts to pantheism is an interesting question. In any case, his theory is often understood as heretical/unorthodox. The world is a theophany, a manifestation of God via which one can try to reach Him.
JSE is very enthusiastic about return to the One. See last JSE quote.
Apocatastasis again.
Last quote mentions the universe divded into 4 forms. What is this?
Nature/existence divdes into: that which creates and is not created. (God)
that which creates and is created (Intelligible world)
that which is created and does not create (sensible world)
that which is not create and does not create.
For those in the mystical tradition, no categories or characteristics can truly ba attributed to God Beyond Being.
A consequence is than, any real awareness of God must be non-conceptual. This brings us to an element of Neoplatonism I've not emphasized before: the process of emanation is to be followed by a return to the One. The soul should turn away from the world of sense (as described before) but also a way from the world of intellect, to find its true home. This makes the picture mystical. So the highest goal is ecstas, escstatic union with the One. This is a form of awareness (or lack of awareness) above sensory knowledge, but also above conceptual knowledge of forms (which Platinus called reason). Also above intellectual self-knowledge. Platinus claimed to have experienced this ecstasy at various time. And on his deathbed he said "The divine in me returns to the divine in the universe."
The idea is that not only should you strive to return to the One, but that all souls will eventually return. (The One is alpha and omega). Fits with Aristotle's idea of God as both efficient and final cause.
Origen, and Clement of Alexandria before him, likened this procession (proodus) and return (apistrophe) to the Fall and Redemption of Mankind.
This unorthodox element is the idea that all will be saved. This is apocatastasis.
This brings us to the John Scattus Eriusgenn (wrong spelling). Lived after 800. He knew Greek and wrot ethe only genuine philosophical work for some 100's of years after Boethius. Learned Greek through Irish monasteries which were the only places where Greek was still known in this period. JS was himself Irish and his name means Josh the scion of Ireland. Very influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius and translated much of that writing. Major original work called the Periphyseon. Literally: 'About nature'. aka De Devisione Natura 'Visions of Nature'. (N.B JSE means by 'nature' all of existence, and not just the sensible world. ) Periphyseon is a genuine philosophical system, but we'll just look at a few themes.
JSE is very enthusiastic about Negative Theology
See first JSE quote
He is enthusiastic about something that sounds like pantheism, i.e. an identification of God with His creation. See quote 2 of JSE
"So, when we hear that God makes all things we ought to understand nothing else than that God is in all thing, that He is the essence of all things".
Whether this amounts to pantheism is an interesting question. In any case, his theory is often understood as heretical/unorthodox. The world is a theophany, a manifestation of God via which one can try to reach Him.
JSE is very enthusiastic about return to the One. See last JSE quote.
Apocatastasis again.
Last quote mentions the universe divded into 4 forms. What is this?
Nature/existence divdes into: that which creates and is not created. (God)
that which creates and is created (Intelligible world)
that which is created and does not create (sensible world)
that which is not create and does not create.
his201 - wk4 - lect 2
Charlemagne (742-814)
The Merovingian Kings
The kingdom was divided up between the four sons. All four during the late 520's and 530's engaged in a very long war with the Burgundians. In which Chlodomy or Chlodomer, died. After this Clothar (d.561) reigned and then handed his power over to his sons.
Then moving into the 7th century a new generation emerged with Chlotar II (d.629).
The battles with the Franks, the civil war, would have decimated the ranks of the processors. And would have sucked up the money of the region. The wealthy land owners of the region gradually gained more and more administrative power. These aristocrats through their actions and pleas to the kings took on more formal titles and roles. These titles and roles were labelled as dukes and counts. They acted as advisors to the kings as some times, they organised the local judicial systems (who were usually community elders) and the collection of royal revenue. There is a de-centralisation where the merovingian kings are not very apparent in the administration whereas local dukes and counts run the show. The Mayor of the Palace was the most powerful role. The king was simply a figurehead. The Mayor of the Palace within each principality of the region took on most responsibility and made most of the decisions. Whilst we could continue the family tree well into the 8th century it would have little significance for our purposes because of the decentralisation of power.
the Merovingian kings who came after Clovis became known as the:
"the do-nothing kings"
The Carolingians
Carolingian sources:
Chronical of Fredegar (Anon)
Book of the History of the Franks (Anon) both provide a bias towards the Carolingians
While the Merovingians declined the aristocrats, the dukes, the counts and the Mayors of the Palace moved into the roles. Pippin II (d.714) was the mayor of the palace for Austrasia. (there is a dynasty emerging here).
Charles Martel [the hammer] (d.741)
Led Austrasia into a military victory over Eustrasia. [herny perin's thesis about the changing face of the europe and Mediterranean sea]
Charles took most of Gaul under his control and was able to impose his control of Burgundy and by the late 730's he controlled most of that as well. Essentially he brought almost all of Gaul under unified and seemingly centralised administration that was still headed by, at least in name and all intensive purposes, a Merovingian king. So from 720's, 730's onwards, we are talking to a region, that is referred to in the sources, really no longer as Gaul, you know a region that has been fractured really since the Roman empire, as Francia. Charles was succeeded by Pippin III (d.768) and Carloman. They spent much of their time trying to maintain the stability of the kingdom. In 757 Carloman ran off to a monastery and Pippin III took full control, just like Charles. His diplomacy with aristocrats was essential. This networking allowed him to make his boldest move in 751, that is the dismissal of the last Merovingian king, and thus, he took the crown. He asked the Pope if he can call the Mayor of the Palace, King.
Pippin III decides to have a very lavish ceremony at Soissons to show the world that he had become King. Boniface, the Bishop of Mainz, was a key advisor to Pippin III and he ran the ceremony, and showed the public display and approval of a local bishop. In 754, 3 years later, another ceremony was held in the Basilica of St. Denis in Paris. This was led by the Pope himself, Steve II. On this occasion the Pope anointed Pippin III with holy oil, mimics the anointing of the Kings of Jerusalem. It shows a divine symbolic meaning. It does appear to be something new, before this, the oil had only ever been used to anoint bishops. During this year Pippin III was also given the title Patrician of the Romans, which has no practical value, however it ties the Crown to Rome. In the sense you get a political alignment between the Pope and the King with a religious stamp of approval. In that ceremony the Pope also anointed Pippin's two sons. So after Pippin III dies there is no doubt who will succeed him.
Rome was also facing increasing pressure from the Lombards. Pippin III led his troops into Italy and defeated the Lombards. He forced the Lombards to pay homage to Pippin to to stop invading Roman territory. As such the Lombard kingdom became a tributary to the Frankish kingdom. In 768 Pippin III died. The administration of his kingdom was divided between his sons who co ruled for 3 years, and they essentially divided the kingdom up between the two of them. Carloman took much of the southern regions, Burgandy and Provence. After 3 years, of very tense relationships with his brother, Carloman died (in suspicious circumstances). And so Charles (Charlemagne) took up the title Patrician of the Romans. The first 20 years or so of his reign were spent on the battlefiend. He would regularly travel north to bring the Saxons under his control. He would force Christian conversions upon these pagans and Aryans. We can see how he aimed to use religion as an expedient political tool in an attempt to control. He also had to control the Lombards to the south, as they threatened to move again into the Papal territories. This is a rather important campaign for Frankish - Papal relations (Charlemagne's campaigns in Lombardia) He was so successful in his campaigns there that he annexed the region and became king of Lombardia. Not only did he take this title, he started a fresh campaign to take some of the land beyond the Pyrenees. Charlemagne wasn't always successful in these campaigns, he often lost large amounts of troops for very small gain. He was however successful in his advancement of education and literacy and his relationship with the Papacy was very strong.
Two of the main biographical sources on Charlemagne are:
The life of Charles by Einhard, (c.830)
He wrote this biography after Charles died as a tribute to him.
and
Deeds of Charles, Notker the Stammerer (C.884)
Notker wrote his biography less then a century after his death, and was commissioned by Charles the Fat.
Both of these biographies are tainted with bias towards Charles, they stress his religiosity and his relationship with the Church, it is taken to a new level. Which may or may be reliable... we don't know.
The Merovingian Kings
The kingdom was divided up between the four sons. All four during the late 520's and 530's engaged in a very long war with the Burgundians. In which Chlodomy or Chlodomer, died. After this Clothar (d.561) reigned and then handed his power over to his sons.
Then moving into the 7th century a new generation emerged with Chlotar II (d.629).
The battles with the Franks, the civil war, would have decimated the ranks of the processors. And would have sucked up the money of the region. The wealthy land owners of the region gradually gained more and more administrative power. These aristocrats through their actions and pleas to the kings took on more formal titles and roles. These titles and roles were labelled as dukes and counts. They acted as advisors to the kings as some times, they organised the local judicial systems (who were usually community elders) and the collection of royal revenue. There is a de-centralisation where the merovingian kings are not very apparent in the administration whereas local dukes and counts run the show. The Mayor of the Palace was the most powerful role. The king was simply a figurehead. The Mayor of the Palace within each principality of the region took on most responsibility and made most of the decisions. Whilst we could continue the family tree well into the 8th century it would have little significance for our purposes because of the decentralisation of power.
the Merovingian kings who came after Clovis became known as the:
"the do-nothing kings"
The Carolingians
Carolingian sources:
Chronical of Fredegar (Anon)
Book of the History of the Franks (Anon) both provide a bias towards the Carolingians
While the Merovingians declined the aristocrats, the dukes, the counts and the Mayors of the Palace moved into the roles. Pippin II (d.714) was the mayor of the palace for Austrasia. (there is a dynasty emerging here).
Charles Martel [the hammer] (d.741)
Led Austrasia into a military victory over Eustrasia. [herny perin's thesis about the changing face of the europe and Mediterranean sea]
Charles took most of Gaul under his control and was able to impose his control of Burgundy and by the late 730's he controlled most of that as well. Essentially he brought almost all of Gaul under unified and seemingly centralised administration that was still headed by, at least in name and all intensive purposes, a Merovingian king. So from 720's, 730's onwards, we are talking to a region, that is referred to in the sources, really no longer as Gaul, you know a region that has been fractured really since the Roman empire, as Francia. Charles was succeeded by Pippin III (d.768) and Carloman. They spent much of their time trying to maintain the stability of the kingdom. In 757 Carloman ran off to a monastery and Pippin III took full control, just like Charles. His diplomacy with aristocrats was essential. This networking allowed him to make his boldest move in 751, that is the dismissal of the last Merovingian king, and thus, he took the crown. He asked the Pope if he can call the Mayor of the Palace, King.
Pippin III decides to have a very lavish ceremony at Soissons to show the world that he had become King. Boniface, the Bishop of Mainz, was a key advisor to Pippin III and he ran the ceremony, and showed the public display and approval of a local bishop. In 754, 3 years later, another ceremony was held in the Basilica of St. Denis in Paris. This was led by the Pope himself, Steve II. On this occasion the Pope anointed Pippin III with holy oil, mimics the anointing of the Kings of Jerusalem. It shows a divine symbolic meaning. It does appear to be something new, before this, the oil had only ever been used to anoint bishops. During this year Pippin III was also given the title Patrician of the Romans, which has no practical value, however it ties the Crown to Rome. In the sense you get a political alignment between the Pope and the King with a religious stamp of approval. In that ceremony the Pope also anointed Pippin's two sons. So after Pippin III dies there is no doubt who will succeed him.
Rome was also facing increasing pressure from the Lombards. Pippin III led his troops into Italy and defeated the Lombards. He forced the Lombards to pay homage to Pippin to to stop invading Roman territory. As such the Lombard kingdom became a tributary to the Frankish kingdom. In 768 Pippin III died. The administration of his kingdom was divided between his sons who co ruled for 3 years, and they essentially divided the kingdom up between the two of them. Carloman took much of the southern regions, Burgandy and Provence. After 3 years, of very tense relationships with his brother, Carloman died (in suspicious circumstances). And so Charles (Charlemagne) took up the title Patrician of the Romans. The first 20 years or so of his reign were spent on the battlefiend. He would regularly travel north to bring the Saxons under his control. He would force Christian conversions upon these pagans and Aryans. We can see how he aimed to use religion as an expedient political tool in an attempt to control. He also had to control the Lombards to the south, as they threatened to move again into the Papal territories. This is a rather important campaign for Frankish - Papal relations (Charlemagne's campaigns in Lombardia) He was so successful in his campaigns there that he annexed the region and became king of Lombardia. Not only did he take this title, he started a fresh campaign to take some of the land beyond the Pyrenees. Charlemagne wasn't always successful in these campaigns, he often lost large amounts of troops for very small gain. He was however successful in his advancement of education and literacy and his relationship with the Papacy was very strong.
Two of the main biographical sources on Charlemagne are:
The life of Charles by Einhard, (c.830)
He wrote this biography after Charles died as a tribute to him.
and
Deeds of Charles, Notker the Stammerer (C.884)
Notker wrote his biography less then a century after his death, and was commissioned by Charles the Fat.
Both of these biographies are tainted with bias towards Charles, they stress his religiosity and his relationship with the Church, it is taken to a new level. Which may or may be reliable... we don't know.
Lit201 - Wk4 - Lect2
The nun is an interesting character - basically a good woman but a bit vain - the worst thing she has ever said was using the name of a saint when they are exasperated. She sings the divine praises... but through her nose - ethereal, disembodied type singing. She speaks French well. She is very prim and proper, clean and well mannered. Charitable, pitiful and so merciful she would weep if she saw a mouse in a trap. She has hounds, dogs, a sign of wealth, she feeds them with roasted flesh, in other words, really good food. She is wealthy. She is worldly. She is a little bit precious. She's not 'undergrown'. Her motto is love conquers all, or romantic love conquers all, so it almost has double and contradictory meanings to it.
The monk has a bridle, and a bell that jingles, for the monk this bell should be a symbol of his monkish life. But as he is riding along people here his bell and know he is out riding - enjoying a wealthy past time. He had grey-hounds. He loved above all else, riding and hunting for hares. And he wouldn't spare any cost on these pleasures. He had beautiful fur-lined sleeves, the finest in the land. Here is a monk, taking a vow of poverty, yet he lives the life of a squire. It was no more scandalous for them to see this, then it is for us to see bishops driving around in limousines.
The monk has a bridle, and a bell that jingles, for the monk this bell should be a symbol of his monkish life. But as he is riding along people here his bell and know he is out riding - enjoying a wealthy past time. He had grey-hounds. He loved above all else, riding and hunting for hares. And he wouldn't spare any cost on these pleasures. He had beautiful fur-lined sleeves, the finest in the land. Here is a monk, taking a vow of poverty, yet he lives the life of a squire. It was no more scandalous for them to see this, then it is for us to see bishops driving around in limousines.
Lit201 - Wk 4 - Canterbury Tales
Canterbury Tales
All of the characters are middle class (the knight is on the verge) - making money and going far in life are the motivations of the characters. We know they are middle class by the fact that they are travelling and eating together. They were wealthy enough to afford the pilgrimage but not wealthy enough to hire their own slaves, servants and guards.
D.R Evans.
Genres:
The legend of a saint
Canticle tale in the Nun's priest tale
Fairy tale found in the squires tale
Chivalric romance in the Knight's tale
Tragedy in the Monk's tale.
The simple thing we should take from this is that he is drawing on all these different genres and incorporating them into the weft of his poem. Sort of like a tapestry made up of characters and different literary genres.
the Exemplum (see the camrbidge companion to chaucer, the essay by botani) an exemplum is a tale that gives advice (irony)
romance, involves comedy, has similarites to latin nature poetry, as well as aspects of social poetry.
Dazzling variety of stories and styles. Radical literary individuality of the canterbury tales. The diversity of genres is paralleled by the diversity of moods, outrageous humour, melancholy, irony approaching cynicism. All of these are united in Chaucer's great empathy for the human kind in its fallen condition. Where dante weeps for some of the sinners in the Inferno, there by showing his compassion, Chaucer shows his compassion by a largely unconditional refusal to condemn, even when he judges, assesses the morality of different characters, he doesn't condemn. There is a benevolence to all his characters. He has an acute eye for hypocrisy, and he is not unsparing in his criticism. Showing us that most characters have a likeable side, a potentially redeemable feature. The motley crew is united by the faith, symbolised at different points by there unification as tellers of tales, by their unity in taking their drink together under the watchful eye of the Host, who is a bad bad priest. So we find here the Church militant, warts and all. The comparison of the Host and the priest seems less incongruous at first when you consider how the priest hood is represented in the work. We see the best of the priest hood and the worst of the priest hood.
There is a sense of unity, and then, diversity, because of the possibility of these characters to emerge as unique types. Such as the pardoner represents the corrupt clergy, the knight, represents his order. Chaucer's drawing of his characters is characteristically medieval. As David traversy says, (find the quote) - perhaps the most compelling examples of this are the Wife of Barth (voluptuous, loose, warm hearted and good woman), the pardoner who is so corrupt, and who is, apart from his corruption with finances and his abuse of indulgences and confession and relics and so on, apart from that, he is morally corrupt (there is a suggestion that he is sexually deviant) he has some redeeming qualities, whether it's his humour, or the sense of his own understanding of himself. Whatever it is he has some redeeming feature. So the wife of Barth, has been married a number of times illicitly, at the church door, which means she has been able to pay off a priest to do it, despite all of that there is warmth in her personality. The relationship between the pardoner and a particular character, the type that he represents, is important.
Sometimes we see the palpable presence of God, in the humanity that he created in his image. This sense of living in an almost unconsciously integrated society is typically medieval. This is a world ordered to the things of God, and the things of God permeate this world. (D. R. Evans). Another important point is the remarkable integration of the medieval sensibility. The frequent mixture of religious and sexual imagery is typically medieval. In other words... everything somehow connects, everything is either a sign of something else, or an analogy of something else.
Courtly love poetry soon came to be used in the writings of St. Bernabeth Clairveu. You see it in the counter reformation in the writings of St John of the Cross, the art of Bernini, his famous St Avala in ecstasy. You get the sacred and the profane (the earth, the ordinary) all mixed up.
that was all about the medieval sensibility
The symbolism of pilgrimage
a pilgrimage from the death of sin to the life of Christ. Heaven is our home and we strive after it, Eternity is our end and we strive after it. On this road, there are many diversions, just like in life.
On these pilgrimages there are the over-zealous (White-cliff[ians]), the luke-warm,
All of the characters are middle class (the knight is on the verge) - making money and going far in life are the motivations of the characters. We know they are middle class by the fact that they are travelling and eating together. They were wealthy enough to afford the pilgrimage but not wealthy enough to hire their own slaves, servants and guards.
D.R Evans.
Genres:
The legend of a saint
Canticle tale in the Nun's priest tale
Fairy tale found in the squires tale
Chivalric romance in the Knight's tale
Tragedy in the Monk's tale.
The simple thing we should take from this is that he is drawing on all these different genres and incorporating them into the weft of his poem. Sort of like a tapestry made up of characters and different literary genres.
the Exemplum (see the camrbidge companion to chaucer, the essay by botani) an exemplum is a tale that gives advice (irony)
romance, involves comedy, has similarites to latin nature poetry, as well as aspects of social poetry.
Dazzling variety of stories and styles. Radical literary individuality of the canterbury tales. The diversity of genres is paralleled by the diversity of moods, outrageous humour, melancholy, irony approaching cynicism. All of these are united in Chaucer's great empathy for the human kind in its fallen condition. Where dante weeps for some of the sinners in the Inferno, there by showing his compassion, Chaucer shows his compassion by a largely unconditional refusal to condemn, even when he judges, assesses the morality of different characters, he doesn't condemn. There is a benevolence to all his characters. He has an acute eye for hypocrisy, and he is not unsparing in his criticism. Showing us that most characters have a likeable side, a potentially redeemable feature. The motley crew is united by the faith, symbolised at different points by there unification as tellers of tales, by their unity in taking their drink together under the watchful eye of the Host, who is a bad bad priest. So we find here the Church militant, warts and all. The comparison of the Host and the priest seems less incongruous at first when you consider how the priest hood is represented in the work. We see the best of the priest hood and the worst of the priest hood.
There is a sense of unity, and then, diversity, because of the possibility of these characters to emerge as unique types. Such as the pardoner represents the corrupt clergy, the knight, represents his order. Chaucer's drawing of his characters is characteristically medieval. As David traversy says, (find the quote) - perhaps the most compelling examples of this are the Wife of Barth (voluptuous, loose, warm hearted and good woman), the pardoner who is so corrupt, and who is, apart from his corruption with finances and his abuse of indulgences and confession and relics and so on, apart from that, he is morally corrupt (there is a suggestion that he is sexually deviant) he has some redeeming qualities, whether it's his humour, or the sense of his own understanding of himself. Whatever it is he has some redeeming feature. So the wife of Barth, has been married a number of times illicitly, at the church door, which means she has been able to pay off a priest to do it, despite all of that there is warmth in her personality. The relationship between the pardoner and a particular character, the type that he represents, is important.
Sometimes we see the palpable presence of God, in the humanity that he created in his image. This sense of living in an almost unconsciously integrated society is typically medieval. This is a world ordered to the things of God, and the things of God permeate this world. (D. R. Evans). Another important point is the remarkable integration of the medieval sensibility. The frequent mixture of religious and sexual imagery is typically medieval. In other words... everything somehow connects, everything is either a sign of something else, or an analogy of something else.
Courtly love poetry soon came to be used in the writings of St. Bernabeth Clairveu. You see it in the counter reformation in the writings of St John of the Cross, the art of Bernini, his famous St Avala in ecstasy. You get the sacred and the profane (the earth, the ordinary) all mixed up.
that was all about the medieval sensibility
The symbolism of pilgrimage
a pilgrimage from the death of sin to the life of Christ. Heaven is our home and we strive after it, Eternity is our end and we strive after it. On this road, there are many diversions, just like in life.
On these pilgrimages there are the over-zealous (White-cliff[ians]), the luke-warm,
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Phi201 - wk 4 - lect1
Phi201- Medieval PHi. Wk4 Mystical Platonists
Gnostics:
Platinus (204 - 270)
Origen (185-254)
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (c.500)
John Scottus Eriugena (c.800-877)
Other Lot:
St. Augustine (354-430)
Boethius (c.480-c.525)
For Augustine and Boeithius it's that they have no element of mysticism in their thought but it is not as central a place.
Today's agenda:
Bird's-eye summary /illustration / recap of how some themes developed or echoed in the writings of the 'mystic' strand.
Firstly: recall the Platinian doctrine that the One is 'beyond Being'. How can we understand this strange claim? In tutorials, use law that according to Platinus all beings - a choir, an army, a table, the soul, the intellect - possess some sort of unity, without which unity they would not exist. What differentiates a char, and existing thing, from the planks, it's made of, is unity. The chair is a new thing existing over and above the planks, because of this unity. Unity makes new things come into being. See point one of the handout.
The flock exists (has being) because the individual binds are bound together by some sort of unity. If they were scattered across the world, without unity, the flock would not exist.
*These things, however, are only participants in unity. The ultimate source of unity, unity itself, is the One.
Quote 2.
In this sense the One, being the source of unity and hence being, is beyond Being. Does this mean that the One itself has no being? You don't have to say this. You might say: the One has perfect being. St. Augustine says this and most later medieval philosophers say this about God. But note that this would be perfect being in our ordinary sense. And Platinus feels that this would be to illegitimately downplay the transcendence, the beyondness, of the One - it's difference from the beings it gives being to. Why Platinus feels this way may become clearer if we note that the same holds for all other determinations or characteristics, even of a perfect sort.
It is Platonic Forms or Idens that have perfect versions of the characteristics we group with our intellects. Perfect beauty or wisdom is a form. Equally, then, if there was a perfect being (in our sense) it would be in the world of Forms. But the One is the source of that world, hence beyond it, so it can't have even perfect being. (One way to look at it:) The One is beyond the Intellect and hence beyond e.g beauty. So it is not beautiful. But it doesn't fail to be beautiful through lack; it fails to be so through transcendence.
This is the idea behind NEgative Theology (apophatic theology, via negation) as opposed to Positive Theology (catophatic, via affirmation). These aren't mutally exclusive. You start by affirming perfect beauty of God. This is the catophatic stage. Then you realise that He is transcendent and beyond even perfect beauty. So you deny beauty of Him. This is the apophatic stage. Then you realise that this is non-beauty through transcendence and not lack, so you attribute the predicate 'super- or hyper- beautiful'. This is the via eminentia.
This treatment finds very influential expression in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. He passed his writings off as the work of the Dionysius converted by St. Paul and so the texts had a great deal of influence .
Known as the Areopagite because the conversion took place on the hill in Rome called the Areopagus. It became clear much later that some of the writing was cribbed from Proclus, a Neoplatonist who lived much later than St. Paul. Often known as Pseudo-Penys. See Quotes from 'The Divine Names' - 'Mystical Theology'.
We cannot grasp God, through conceptual thought. Our catergories are not adequate to Him. (see ch.5 of Mystical Theology). The problem is not however, with our categories, or our cognitive limitations. Our lack of ability to get to God via intellect is not epistemalogical, but metaphistical. No categories are adequate to Him. So any genuine contact would have to be non-intellectual and mystical. A non-conceptual union rather than a knowing.
Gnostics:
Platinus (204 - 270)
Origen (185-254)
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (c.500)
John Scottus Eriugena (c.800-877)
Other Lot:
St. Augustine (354-430)
Boethius (c.480-c.525)
For Augustine and Boeithius it's that they have no element of mysticism in their thought but it is not as central a place.
Today's agenda:
Bird's-eye summary /illustration / recap of how some themes developed or echoed in the writings of the 'mystic' strand.
Firstly: recall the Platinian doctrine that the One is 'beyond Being'. How can we understand this strange claim? In tutorials, use law that according to Platinus all beings - a choir, an army, a table, the soul, the intellect - possess some sort of unity, without which unity they would not exist. What differentiates a char, and existing thing, from the planks, it's made of, is unity. The chair is a new thing existing over and above the planks, because of this unity. Unity makes new things come into being. See point one of the handout.
The flock exists (has being) because the individual binds are bound together by some sort of unity. If they were scattered across the world, without unity, the flock would not exist.
*These things, however, are only participants in unity. The ultimate source of unity, unity itself, is the One.
Quote 2.
In this sense the One, being the source of unity and hence being, is beyond Being. Does this mean that the One itself has no being? You don't have to say this. You might say: the One has perfect being. St. Augustine says this and most later medieval philosophers say this about God. But note that this would be perfect being in our ordinary sense. And Platinus feels that this would be to illegitimately downplay the transcendence, the beyondness, of the One - it's difference from the beings it gives being to. Why Platinus feels this way may become clearer if we note that the same holds for all other determinations or characteristics, even of a perfect sort.
It is Platonic Forms or Idens that have perfect versions of the characteristics we group with our intellects. Perfect beauty or wisdom is a form. Equally, then, if there was a perfect being (in our sense) it would be in the world of Forms. But the One is the source of that world, hence beyond it, so it can't have even perfect being. (One way to look at it:) The One is beyond the Intellect and hence beyond e.g beauty. So it is not beautiful. But it doesn't fail to be beautiful through lack; it fails to be so through transcendence.
This is the idea behind NEgative Theology (apophatic theology, via negation) as opposed to Positive Theology (catophatic, via affirmation). These aren't mutally exclusive. You start by affirming perfect beauty of God. This is the catophatic stage. Then you realise that He is transcendent and beyond even perfect beauty. So you deny beauty of Him. This is the apophatic stage. Then you realise that this is non-beauty through transcendence and not lack, so you attribute the predicate 'super- or hyper- beautiful'. This is the via eminentia.
This treatment finds very influential expression in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. He passed his writings off as the work of the Dionysius converted by St. Paul and so the texts had a great deal of influence .
Known as the Areopagite because the conversion took place on the hill in Rome called the Areopagus. It became clear much later that some of the writing was cribbed from Proclus, a Neoplatonist who lived much later than St. Paul. Often known as Pseudo-Penys. See Quotes from 'The Divine Names' - 'Mystical Theology'.
We cannot grasp God, through conceptual thought. Our catergories are not adequate to Him. (see ch.5 of Mystical Theology). The problem is not however, with our categories, or our cognitive limitations. Our lack of ability to get to God via intellect is not epistemalogical, but metaphistical. No categories are adequate to Him. So any genuine contact would have to be non-intellectual and mystical. A non-conceptual union rather than a knowing.
His201 - wk4 - lect 1 - Franks - Geopolitics
His201 - Wk4 - Lect1- Clovis and Christianity in the Frankish Kingdom
Geopolitics - Geopolitics is the study that analyzes geography, history and social science with reference to spatial politics and patterns at various scales (ranging from the level of the state to international)
The Franks were largely pagan up until the 6th century.
Childeric (king. 456 - 481) followed by Clovis (king. 481 - 511)
Clovis succeeded his father when he was only 15. Immediately he received a show of support from bishop Remigius, from Riems. It's important to note that even though there was no emperor in Rome - the bishop was referring to Clovis as a new Roman emperor, shownig that he should maintain the status quo, maintain the relationships with the local political and economical partners. This beings to show the image of Clovis and Childeric as Romanized Franks.
Gregory of Tours' story about Clovis sounds like a replay of Constantine's conversion. This led Gregory to lable Clovis as 'the new Constantine'.
Clovis sent letters to Gaulish bishops, was baptised by Remigius, bishop of Riems.
Shows a political expediency. Clovis started to use the Gaulish bishops as political allies.
Clovis then moved from Tournai to Paris: Tribute to St. Denis, disciple of St. Paul and church of St. Genevieve.
You get the feeling that the aim of this whole project, the blending of Church and State, was to establish uniformity, unity, a diplomatic network to help him administer this expanding kingdom. What we have through all of this is the solid foundation of a Frankish kingdom that replaced the Roman empire in Gaul. The only people to adopt the Roman Christianity. Colonising culture - settling generations of its people into conquered territory. These two facets assist the foundation of the Frankish kingdom so that it may last.
Clovis' biography has been a victim of Whiggism. In other words there is the temptation to cast him as the originator of a modern institution. He did this by establishing and maintaining ties with some powerful contemporary institutions within the Church and the Roman empire.
Clovis' administration was not centralised. When Clovis died his kingdom was divided up between his young sons. One of these sons was illegitimate. Thus the division of these lands could not have been smooth. But essentially the sons were helped by outside interests. For each of them to have some sort of authority, they needed to continue the allegiances and alliances with the local bishops and authorities. It really isn't a simple case of Clovis unifying a version of modern day France, it's must more messy than that. This is far from the classic picture of the unified land with central administration. The over-arching point is that we cannot afford to be whiggish when studying these people.
Was Clovis Christian before conversion in 496? If Clovis was a barbaric pagan than why was the bishop trying to be friends with him? Perhaps Clovis' father, Childeric, was Christian. It is certainly possible to suggest that Clovis, his predecessors and his ancestors were working in conjunction with the Catholic Church and pandering to the Catholic people. It was not unified like it was under the Roman empire, but it continued to impact the political institutions that followed.
Geopolitics - Geopolitics is the study that analyzes geography, history and social science with reference to spatial politics and patterns at various scales (ranging from the level of the state to international)
The Franks were largely pagan up until the 6th century.
Childeric (king. 456 - 481) followed by Clovis (king. 481 - 511)
Clovis succeeded his father when he was only 15. Immediately he received a show of support from bishop Remigius, from Riems. It's important to note that even though there was no emperor in Rome - the bishop was referring to Clovis as a new Roman emperor, shownig that he should maintain the status quo, maintain the relationships with the local political and economical partners. This beings to show the image of Clovis and Childeric as Romanized Franks.
Gregory of Tours' story about Clovis sounds like a replay of Constantine's conversion. This led Gregory to lable Clovis as 'the new Constantine'.
Clovis sent letters to Gaulish bishops, was baptised by Remigius, bishop of Riems.
Shows a political expediency. Clovis started to use the Gaulish bishops as political allies.
Clovis then moved from Tournai to Paris: Tribute to St. Denis, disciple of St. Paul and church of St. Genevieve.
You get the feeling that the aim of this whole project, the blending of Church and State, was to establish uniformity, unity, a diplomatic network to help him administer this expanding kingdom. What we have through all of this is the solid foundation of a Frankish kingdom that replaced the Roman empire in Gaul. The only people to adopt the Roman Christianity. Colonising culture - settling generations of its people into conquered territory. These two facets assist the foundation of the Frankish kingdom so that it may last.
Clovis' biography has been a victim of Whiggism. In other words there is the temptation to cast him as the originator of a modern institution. He did this by establishing and maintaining ties with some powerful contemporary institutions within the Church and the Roman empire.
Clovis' administration was not centralised. When Clovis died his kingdom was divided up between his young sons. One of these sons was illegitimate. Thus the division of these lands could not have been smooth. But essentially the sons were helped by outside interests. For each of them to have some sort of authority, they needed to continue the allegiances and alliances with the local bishops and authorities. It really isn't a simple case of Clovis unifying a version of modern day France, it's must more messy than that. This is far from the classic picture of the unified land with central administration. The over-arching point is that we cannot afford to be whiggish when studying these people.
Was Clovis Christian before conversion in 496? If Clovis was a barbaric pagan than why was the bishop trying to be friends with him? Perhaps Clovis' father, Childeric, was Christian. It is certainly possible to suggest that Clovis, his predecessors and his ancestors were working in conjunction with the Catholic Church and pandering to the Catholic people. It was not unified like it was under the Roman empire, but it continued to impact the political institutions that followed.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
The201 - Wk3 - Anselm
The201 - Wk 3 - Lect2
Anselm
Jesus and Sin
Jesus is just the opposite of Adam - he is the exemplary thing (Pelagius).
Thomas Aquinas (Summa THeologiae, III, q.48, a.-1-6)
Christ, through all his passion has merited salvation for all.
Christ also had made satisfaction for us superabundantly.
Christ also brings about our salvation by sacrifice.
Christ's passion is also a redemption/ransom of sinful humanity from slavery to the devil.
The resurrection of Christ is the efficient and exemplary cause of our resurrection.
Anselm
Jesus and Sin
Jesus is just the opposite of Adam - he is the exemplary thing (Pelagius).
Thomas Aquinas (Summa THeologiae, III, q.48, a.-1-6)
Christ, through all his passion has merited salvation for all.
Christ also had made satisfaction for us superabundantly.
Christ also brings about our salvation by sacrifice.
Christ's passion is also a redemption/ransom of sinful humanity from slavery to the devil.
The resurrection of Christ is the efficient and exemplary cause of our resurrection.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Phi201 - Neoplatonism and Christianity
Neoplatonism and Christianity - some affinities and tensions
In Alexandria, we have a line of thinkers relevant to the Judeo Christian/Platonist nexus
1. Philo of Alexandria (c.25B.C-40A.D)
famous for pioneering allegorical interpretation of scripture in the light of philosophy. Philo identifies the Platonic Good/One (still int he realm of Being) with the Judaic God. Though God/The One is a being for Plato (unlike in Platinus), He is above the Forms and so is not amenable to being grasped intellectually.
(Platinus would later take further this placing of the One above the Forms, and would say that the One transcends not just the forms but Being itself.)
How to interpret this claim by Platinus is open to debate.
In keeping with this transcendence of the Forms, God for Philo cannot be literally described as having properties. All that we can say that is literally true is that He is not wise in the humanly graspable sense. (Via negation, "negative thinking") this idea has a great future ahead of it is the work of Pseudo- dionysius and later John EnSOMETHING) Our usual positive theology is "via affirmation" These (something) are synthesized in "via emination" - god is 'super-wise' in a sense we can't grasp.
Highest human state is a mystical relation to God. Not the virtual identity you get in Platinus tough. Philo's other innovation is the idea of the Forms dwelling in an Intellect mediating between God and material world - a 'heavenly Adam' or 'archangel'
Inferior angels help in creation of world (a Gnostic-style element.)
Origen of Alexandria - Early Father - Apologist - (185-254A.D)
Student of Ammonieus Saecus, who was the teacher of Platinus. Head of Catechetical School in Alexandria. Two major works De Principii [see excerpts] and Contra Celsum (reply to a Platonist attack of Christianity)
Good example of how the Platonic/Christian affinities and tensions work.
Origen identified God with the One, Christ with Logos/the Intellect, and Holy Spirit with world-soul. For him the way the plagial arises (by emanation) is the same as the way the Sun arises from the Father. This has the effect of either divisises the physical world or likening the way the Sunarises to creation(as opposed to begetting) this has an Arian flavour.... mm chicken.
His201 - Lect2 -
His201 - Lecture 6 - Gregory the Great (c.540-604)
Benedictine background - establishing the authority of the papacy and growing influence of the Church
We have to understand 6th century Italian politics in its dealings with other powers in Europe, especially the Eastern Roman empire (which is, up until Gregory, the greatest ally to the Bishop of Rome is the Eastern Roman emperor).
in the late 5th century Rome was a wreck - the imperium was on the brink - the western Roman empire died with the imperial court in Ravenna - The imperial court and senate came under control of a military force (when the western roman emperor fell) Zeno (Eastern Roman Emperor) convinced the ostragothic tribe (theodoric) to invade Italy and he set up his court in Ravenna, and maintained and continued many of the political and cultural traditions that had existed. This included the practice of orthodox beliefs and the sway of the senate (these are two things that Theodoric did not want to corrupt in any way - even though he was arian) in essence Theodorics reign represents the continuity of culture and politics in Italy. Theodoric stabilised things, with the full approval, support and encouragement of Zeno.
Zeno's motives were to get his foot into the Italian politics and force himself back into the homeland. In fact, Theodoric was considered a viceroy for Zeno. These motives were fairly clear to everyone. Now Zeno's ploy also had another benefit: That was to keep the ostrogoths from invading the Eastern Roman Empire. Zeno had some geo-political motivation in his alliance with Theodoric - based largely on Roman identity and imperial power- hangovers from the ancient Roman empire in its entirety.
Things were going smoothly until Theodoric died- he left no clear successor - his son was too young and his wife was seen as unrealiable. Meanwhile in Constantinople (527) Zeno was succeeded by Justinian I (far less diplomatic and far more aggressive when it came to controlling Italy) Once he mustered up the resources Justinian I muscled into Italy in 535. What followed was a long and destructive war, recorded by Procopius, Secret History. He had succeeded in conquering Italy, some of North Africa and Southern Spain, also gained control of the islands Corsica, Sicily (important trading ports and mineral deposits). For much of Justinian's life the Byzantine presence in Italy declined.
The imperial forces could not hold the peninsula - the italian peninsula was then divided up. Eastern Roman forces (imperial forces) still maintained control of central Rome and the trading islands. The lombards did not establish a typical germanic kingdom. they did have a king. Rome was under Papal control, responding to the Byzantine emperor.
So it is in this geo-political environment that Gregory the Great grew up in.
Gregory was born into a wealthy aristocratic family, became a praetor in the Senate, served in the judiciary system. For this reason his later papacy has seen to reflect the typical rigor of Roman education. Religion was not far removed from the sphere of his life, he had gone as far as he wanted to go in politics and felt that he wanted to serve in the administration of the Church. That's not to say that his motivation was purely political, it can't have been, because instead of becoming a bishop straight away, he became a monk. He founded a monastery, appointed an Abbot, and chose to reside in the humbler ranks with his fellow monks. He was dedicated to the quiet life of a monk, but he couldn't escape his reputation as a patrician and an administrator. He was soon called up for his duties, as an ambassador, a representative of the Pope in the imperial court of Constantinople. When he returned from Rome after those duties he became the papal secretariat. Then the Pope died, and the reluctant Gregory was elected Pope. At least that's the way it's put, on the other hand, it's not rare to here these sought of stories about the humble acceptance of a kingdom, or a domain. In any case he accepted this position in 590. At this point the Church was at a bit of a cross-roads. In 589 a plague swept through Rome and the city itself was low on population. Gregory gained the admiration and respect of his parishners in Rome because of his emphasis on the monastic life. He recruited monastic values and practices to the Papacy. He re-asserted the authory of the Pope over all of Christendom. He re-defined the role of the Papacy, with practical authority over the Church. Gregory dispensed advice and instruction on political affairs and religious affairs. He communicated with Gaulish bishops and Merovingian kings. He sponsored missionary expeditions.
And it was also devotional, that's the other face, that's the other arm of it if you like, through the establishment of monastic life. Now as we continue next week we'll see how this institution blended itself with the other institution we have been following thus far, the frankish kingdom to the north. That's something that we are going to continue to explore next week, the contact between the Frankish kingdom and the Church.
Benedictine background - establishing the authority of the papacy and growing influence of the Church
We have to understand 6th century Italian politics in its dealings with other powers in Europe, especially the Eastern Roman empire (which is, up until Gregory, the greatest ally to the Bishop of Rome is the Eastern Roman emperor).
in the late 5th century Rome was a wreck - the imperium was on the brink - the western Roman empire died with the imperial court in Ravenna - The imperial court and senate came under control of a military force (when the western roman emperor fell) Zeno (Eastern Roman Emperor) convinced the ostragothic tribe (theodoric) to invade Italy and he set up his court in Ravenna, and maintained and continued many of the political and cultural traditions that had existed. This included the practice of orthodox beliefs and the sway of the senate (these are two things that Theodoric did not want to corrupt in any way - even though he was arian) in essence Theodorics reign represents the continuity of culture and politics in Italy. Theodoric stabilised things, with the full approval, support and encouragement of Zeno.
Zeno's motives were to get his foot into the Italian politics and force himself back into the homeland. In fact, Theodoric was considered a viceroy for Zeno. These motives were fairly clear to everyone. Now Zeno's ploy also had another benefit: That was to keep the ostrogoths from invading the Eastern Roman Empire. Zeno had some geo-political motivation in his alliance with Theodoric - based largely on Roman identity and imperial power- hangovers from the ancient Roman empire in its entirety.
Things were going smoothly until Theodoric died- he left no clear successor - his son was too young and his wife was seen as unrealiable. Meanwhile in Constantinople (527) Zeno was succeeded by Justinian I (far less diplomatic and far more aggressive when it came to controlling Italy) Once he mustered up the resources Justinian I muscled into Italy in 535. What followed was a long and destructive war, recorded by Procopius, Secret History. He had succeeded in conquering Italy, some of North Africa and Southern Spain, also gained control of the islands Corsica, Sicily (important trading ports and mineral deposits). For much of Justinian's life the Byzantine presence in Italy declined.
The imperial forces could not hold the peninsula - the italian peninsula was then divided up. Eastern Roman forces (imperial forces) still maintained control of central Rome and the trading islands. The lombards did not establish a typical germanic kingdom. they did have a king. Rome was under Papal control, responding to the Byzantine emperor.
So it is in this geo-political environment that Gregory the Great grew up in.
Gregory was born into a wealthy aristocratic family, became a praetor in the Senate, served in the judiciary system. For this reason his later papacy has seen to reflect the typical rigor of Roman education. Religion was not far removed from the sphere of his life, he had gone as far as he wanted to go in politics and felt that he wanted to serve in the administration of the Church. That's not to say that his motivation was purely political, it can't have been, because instead of becoming a bishop straight away, he became a monk. He founded a monastery, appointed an Abbot, and chose to reside in the humbler ranks with his fellow monks. He was dedicated to the quiet life of a monk, but he couldn't escape his reputation as a patrician and an administrator. He was soon called up for his duties, as an ambassador, a representative of the Pope in the imperial court of Constantinople. When he returned from Rome after those duties he became the papal secretariat. Then the Pope died, and the reluctant Gregory was elected Pope. At least that's the way it's put, on the other hand, it's not rare to here these sought of stories about the humble acceptance of a kingdom, or a domain. In any case he accepted this position in 590. At this point the Church was at a bit of a cross-roads. In 589 a plague swept through Rome and the city itself was low on population. Gregory gained the admiration and respect of his parishners in Rome because of his emphasis on the monastic life. He recruited monastic values and practices to the Papacy. He re-asserted the authory of the Pope over all of Christendom. He re-defined the role of the Papacy, with practical authority over the Church. Gregory dispensed advice and instruction on political affairs and religious affairs. He communicated with Gaulish bishops and Merovingian kings. He sponsored missionary expeditions.
And it was also devotional, that's the other face, that's the other arm of it if you like, through the establishment of monastic life. Now as we continue next week we'll see how this institution blended itself with the other institution we have been following thus far, the frankish kingdom to the north. That's something that we are going to continue to explore next week, the contact between the Frankish kingdom and the Church.
Lit201 - lect 2 - Dante's Inferno (Important - holy sonnets of Jean Dam)
Canto 32-33
The relationship between Ugulino and Pagocini
His reaction here is of contempt, but the success of the verse induces pity and sympathy in us. If not for the couple, but certainly for the children.
We also see a symbol which becomes increasingly important and that is that hell becomes a place of terrible cold the closer you get to the center. And the principle reason is it's the furthest removed from God's love and of course God's love is something warm and comforting, therefore, hell is a freezing wasteland and we see bodies lodged in ice in progressing degrees, from bodies covered waste deep to shoulder deep. We get a sense of this increasing bone cold chill. Hell is associated with fire but also with ice, ice that burns.
Canto 32
The ice cold river
"Oh most miscreant rabble, better you had been born as goats or sheep"
"the way frogs seem to croak their muscles leaning"
Dante uses images of rural life to describe spiritual realities.
There is the idea of symbolic retribution but also of persisting.
He just told Dante that if he does not weep over what is happening he must be cruelty himself, but now, he himself is not weeping and the action is taking place, which ironically, shows him as the sinner.
This line either suggest Ugilino ate his children, or, more generally, it just means he died (overcome by starvation). And it has been suggested by Wallis Faldy that somebody who was guilty of cannibalism would have their own treatment for that sin.
Symbolic retribution - he died of startvation and know for eternity he feeds of the person who denied him food - it is also an inversion of the eucharist - a source of eternal life whereas the aforementioned is a sign of eternal damnation.
"The gift of being able to cry"
The relationship between Ugulino and Pagocini
His reaction here is of contempt, but the success of the verse induces pity and sympathy in us. If not for the couple, but certainly for the children.
We also see a symbol which becomes increasingly important and that is that hell becomes a place of terrible cold the closer you get to the center. And the principle reason is it's the furthest removed from God's love and of course God's love is something warm and comforting, therefore, hell is a freezing wasteland and we see bodies lodged in ice in progressing degrees, from bodies covered waste deep to shoulder deep. We get a sense of this increasing bone cold chill. Hell is associated with fire but also with ice, ice that burns.
Canto 32
The ice cold river
"Oh most miscreant rabble, better you had been born as goats or sheep"
"the way frogs seem to croak their muscles leaning"
Dante uses images of rural life to describe spiritual realities.
There is the idea of symbolic retribution but also of persisting.
He just told Dante that if he does not weep over what is happening he must be cruelty himself, but now, he himself is not weeping and the action is taking place, which ironically, shows him as the sinner.
This line either suggest Ugilino ate his children, or, more generally, it just means he died (overcome by starvation). And it has been suggested by Wallis Faldy that somebody who was guilty of cannibalism would have their own treatment for that sin.
Symbolic retribution - he died of startvation and know for eternity he feeds of the person who denied him food - it is also an inversion of the eucharist - a source of eternal life whereas the aforementioned is a sign of eternal damnation.
"The gift of being able to cry"
Lit201 - Lect 1 - Dante's Inferno
Dante's Inferno - Canto XXVI
Dante shows here his political and poetical skills.
If his fault is a natural one, why is Ulysses not with the pagans (in limbo)? It's a natural transgression.
It's the 2nd time to people are condemned together, Francesco and Paulo, Ulysses and Diomedes and one other. They were together in life and in death. And only one speaks for the other.
Dante decided that Ulysses did not return to Ithaca - there are many things that hint at this.
Dante realises the limitations of trying to articulate the mystery of hell, and the limitations of language itself. (Canto 4)
In other times through the work one will notice that Dante has to walk a fine line between praising himself as it were, as the poet who has absorbed the lessons of antiquity and has perfected them as faith perfects reason, he has to walk a balance between that truth as he sees it and the paradoxical reality that none the less he achieves it he falls short of it. In the 9th circle of hell he says if you speak to me I will make your name famous for all eternity, appealing to the narcissism of the souls and also making apparent his power through language. Dante struggles with being successful and being humble.
Dante shows here his political and poetical skills.
If his fault is a natural one, why is Ulysses not with the pagans (in limbo)? It's a natural transgression.
It's the 2nd time to people are condemned together, Francesco and Paulo, Ulysses and Diomedes and one other. They were together in life and in death. And only one speaks for the other.
Dante decided that Ulysses did not return to Ithaca - there are many things that hint at this.
Dante realises the limitations of trying to articulate the mystery of hell, and the limitations of language itself. (Canto 4)
In other times through the work one will notice that Dante has to walk a fine line between praising himself as it were, as the poet who has absorbed the lessons of antiquity and has perfected them as faith perfects reason, he has to walk a balance between that truth as he sees it and the paradoxical reality that none the less he achieves it he falls short of it. In the 9th circle of hell he says if you speak to me I will make your name famous for all eternity, appealing to the narcissism of the souls and also making apparent his power through language. Dante struggles with being successful and being humble.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Phi201 - week 3 - lect 1
Phi201 - week 3 - lect 1
Athens and Jerusalem
*refer to drawing in tute-book*
we can now begin looking at the relation between Platonism/Neoplationism and Christian thought, in writings of the early Church Fathers. Some had a negative attitude to non-Christian, i.e. Greek, philosophy, others were more positive. Let's look at some representatives of these tendencies:
Stock 'anti-philosophical' is Tertullian (c. 160-225) - son of a Roman centurion. Born in Carthage, North Africa. It's an over-simplification to say that he is 'anti-philosophical'. Very well-versed in Greek thought; introduced the term 'Trinity' and the formula 'three persons, one substance'. Fierce polemicist. Ended up only dubiously orthodox, a Montonist (rigorous ascetic sect). He's the source of the quote:
'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' Meaning, there's no real value in Greek thought for the Christian - the Christian is privy to higher thought that can be achieved without philosophical methods - the philosophical training is most likely going to lead a Christian astray. (reading it baldly). This has some support in scripture and this attitude has had its adherents ever since (e.g. St. Ambrose "from logicians free us, Oh Lord".)
Nevertheless, there were other reasons , which ultimately proved decisive, for Christians to engage with philosophy. Two are:
1. An external reason. To do apologetics to deal with unbelievers and defend your faith to them, one cannot appeal to scripture and so must invoke philosophical reason.
2. To understand one's faith, to explore it, one needs conceptual tools which philosophy can provide, e.g. the apparatus of substance and accident help to explain transubstantination, or the Trinity.
Moreover, there are tantalizing affinities, and tensions, between Christianity and Platonism, in particular. The problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Affinities include the idea of the immaterial world. St. Augustine says he learnt to understand this idea via Platonism. Platonism can be useful as 'training wheels' for Christianity in this way.
Athens and Jerusalem
*refer to drawing in tute-book*
we can now begin looking at the relation between Platonism/Neoplationism and Christian thought, in writings of the early Church Fathers. Some had a negative attitude to non-Christian, i.e. Greek, philosophy, others were more positive. Let's look at some representatives of these tendencies:
Stock 'anti-philosophical' is Tertullian (c. 160-225) - son of a Roman centurion. Born in Carthage, North Africa. It's an over-simplification to say that he is 'anti-philosophical'. Very well-versed in Greek thought; introduced the term 'Trinity' and the formula 'three persons, one substance'. Fierce polemicist. Ended up only dubiously orthodox, a Montonist (rigorous ascetic sect). He's the source of the quote:
'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' Meaning, there's no real value in Greek thought for the Christian - the Christian is privy to higher thought that can be achieved without philosophical methods - the philosophical training is most likely going to lead a Christian astray. (reading it baldly). This has some support in scripture and this attitude has had its adherents ever since (e.g. St. Ambrose "from logicians free us, Oh Lord".)
Nevertheless, there were other reasons , which ultimately proved decisive, for Christians to engage with philosophy. Two are:
1. An external reason. To do apologetics to deal with unbelievers and defend your faith to them, one cannot appeal to scripture and so must invoke philosophical reason.
2. To understand one's faith, to explore it, one needs conceptual tools which philosophy can provide, e.g. the apparatus of substance and accident help to explain transubstantination, or the Trinity.
Moreover, there are tantalizing affinities, and tensions, between Christianity and Platonism, in particular. The problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Affinities include the idea of the immaterial world. St. Augustine says he learnt to understand this idea via Platonism. Platonism can be useful as 'training wheels' for Christianity in this way.
His201 - Week 3
His201 - Week 3 Lecture 1
The growing Church - developing Authorization, rules and power
Why are monasteries important?
They become educational and political institution.
St Gregory the 1st (first monastic Pope)
Most Latin Fathers lived around the 4th century - lives of seclusion, lives of assisting and aiding the Church with it's mission - lives of commitment towards a one purpose. The Latin Fathers are all around the same age - why?
There's no longer the constant persecution from pagan rulers, not only emperors but governors in different localities. There are still the occasional governors or emperors who wanted to clamp down on Christianity - but generally speaking Christianity was given more room to move and to express itself. This meant fewer persecutions - so martyrdom still occurred and was still considered the highest stage in the spiritual ascent of a Christian soul. Martyrdom is simply happening less regularly - so individuals sought another outlet for the expression of their religious fate - solitude, chastity, these becomes the vows of the most devout. Furthermore, people were less pre-occupied about the pagans and the persecutions, people became more lax with the religious customs (rather like 21st century Christians some may say)
Gregory of Tours "decline in the moral fibre of the community"
People sought lives of contemplation and isolation to distance themselves from temptation and the lax morals of society. Or they could choose a life as a public servant.
asceticism (an abandonment of worldly items and pleasures - as defined by St Paul - sell all you have, give to the poor, and, come and follow) and penance.
For St Paul, such a choice also meant celibacy, fasting and constant prayer - by doing this you will find the inner tranquillity that will lead you to God. Can't forget the neo-platonic overtones here
Augustine's City of God and Confessions are all about reinforcing the importance of the Christian life
St Antony (c 251 – 356) born in Egypt - Father of Christian Monasticism - one of the first to take on the lifestyle of seclusion and isolation - a representative of very early monasticism - aided by a very flattering biography (or hagiography -a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint) ) Written by a Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373)
Eremitic - a life of seclusions with followers/company (communal monastics - coenibitic - community life)
So what we have is the formation, apart from the Eremitic, of the communities of Monks who follow their leader and they work towards the goal which is the salvation of the soul.
Monach - original Greek term from which we get monasticism.
As more lives sought Monasticism, and more and more people joining monastic communities, different groups arose. With different goals, different numbers, and different organisation. There were no rules - practices varied between different monasteries.
Symeon Stylites the pole sitter.
Jerome- often credited with bringing the monastic life to the Western world, especially Rome.
Urban monasteries became quite popular, taking on a different life to the Eastern monasteries, they are more politically active, because they are in the urban center. Because they are in the middle of a city they don't have any farmland to live off, instead they live off the bounty of an altruistic wealthy patron.
So next to the rise of the Bishops - there was a growing rise in the virtuous communities - such was the virtuosity of these communities they demanded respect.
One problem of these early monasteries is that there was no established uniform rule or policy, and no one same sustained aim or objective. The only one aim they did share was to embrace and protect those seeking a spiritual life.
This changed with the arrival of St Benedict - he established 12 monasteries outside of Rome and ruled over them. He had to leave - as he could not contain the disorder in these 12 monasteries. So he fled to Monte Cassino, around the year 520, and he established another monastery. And it was around this time that he wrote the Rule What was the impact this had on monasticism?
It became a guide for how monastic communities should be organised and run. They should be independent, self-sustainable communities and there should be a community life, rather than a complete isolated life - all monks should participate in the community's affairs rather than keep to himself - and this authority was given to the Abbot.
This comes across as a bit of a stab at the urban monasteries which relied on the patron.
The Rule is not that severe. Benedict did not emphasise flagellation, there was emphasis on reaching a balance between strict asceticism and healthy communal living.
Benedict is not the only person to write a rule-book on monastic living - it's just that his book gained greatest dissemination through Charlemagne. Benedict himself did not think he was writing a rule for all posterity. This organisation of monasteries also gave them the stoke to become educational and political institutions. They were politically relevant because they were usually large organised communities sitting in cities. Monasteries demanded the respect of the community and were often called upon to help the community. They also became key educational institutions because of the Benedict ideals (Benedict himself did not specify this in his rules, but by placing so much authority on the Abbots, monasteries often consciously took on this responsibility of education) This added a new dimension to the organisation of the Catholic Church - the authority of the Church was only going to grow - the organised and admired structure of the monasteries inevitably led them to become important educational and political power-houses.
The growing Church - developing Authorization, rules and power
Why are monasteries important?
They become educational and political institution.
St Gregory the 1st (first monastic Pope)
Most Latin Fathers lived around the 4th century - lives of seclusion, lives of assisting and aiding the Church with it's mission - lives of commitment towards a one purpose. The Latin Fathers are all around the same age - why?
There's no longer the constant persecution from pagan rulers, not only emperors but governors in different localities. There are still the occasional governors or emperors who wanted to clamp down on Christianity - but generally speaking Christianity was given more room to move and to express itself. This meant fewer persecutions - so martyrdom still occurred and was still considered the highest stage in the spiritual ascent of a Christian soul. Martyrdom is simply happening less regularly - so individuals sought another outlet for the expression of their religious fate - solitude, chastity, these becomes the vows of the most devout. Furthermore, people were less pre-occupied about the pagans and the persecutions, people became more lax with the religious customs (rather like 21st century Christians some may say)
Gregory of Tours "decline in the moral fibre of the community"
People sought lives of contemplation and isolation to distance themselves from temptation and the lax morals of society. Or they could choose a life as a public servant.
asceticism (an abandonment of worldly items and pleasures - as defined by St Paul - sell all you have, give to the poor, and, come and follow) and penance.
For St Paul, such a choice also meant celibacy, fasting and constant prayer - by doing this you will find the inner tranquillity that will lead you to God. Can't forget the neo-platonic overtones here
Augustine's City of God and Confessions are all about reinforcing the importance of the Christian life
St Antony (c 251 – 356) born in Egypt - Father of Christian Monasticism - one of the first to take on the lifestyle of seclusion and isolation - a representative of very early monasticism - aided by a very flattering biography (or hagiography -a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint) ) Written by a Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373)
Eremitic - a life of seclusions with followers/company (communal monastics - coenibitic - community life)
So what we have is the formation, apart from the Eremitic, of the communities of Monks who follow their leader and they work towards the goal which is the salvation of the soul.
Monach - original Greek term from which we get monasticism.
As more lives sought Monasticism, and more and more people joining monastic communities, different groups arose. With different goals, different numbers, and different organisation. There were no rules - practices varied between different monasteries.
Symeon Stylites the pole sitter.
Jerome- often credited with bringing the monastic life to the Western world, especially Rome.
Urban monasteries became quite popular, taking on a different life to the Eastern monasteries, they are more politically active, because they are in the urban center. Because they are in the middle of a city they don't have any farmland to live off, instead they live off the bounty of an altruistic wealthy patron.
So next to the rise of the Bishops - there was a growing rise in the virtuous communities - such was the virtuosity of these communities they demanded respect.
One problem of these early monasteries is that there was no established uniform rule or policy, and no one same sustained aim or objective. The only one aim they did share was to embrace and protect those seeking a spiritual life.
This changed with the arrival of St Benedict - he established 12 monasteries outside of Rome and ruled over them. He had to leave - as he could not contain the disorder in these 12 monasteries. So he fled to Monte Cassino, around the year 520, and he established another monastery. And it was around this time that he wrote the Rule What was the impact this had on monasticism?
It became a guide for how monastic communities should be organised and run. They should be independent, self-sustainable communities and there should be a community life, rather than a complete isolated life - all monks should participate in the community's affairs rather than keep to himself - and this authority was given to the Abbot.
This comes across as a bit of a stab at the urban monasteries which relied on the patron.
The Rule is not that severe. Benedict did not emphasise flagellation, there was emphasis on reaching a balance between strict asceticism and healthy communal living.
Benedict is not the only person to write a rule-book on monastic living - it's just that his book gained greatest dissemination through Charlemagne. Benedict himself did not think he was writing a rule for all posterity. This organisation of monasteries also gave them the stoke to become educational and political institutions. They were politically relevant because they were usually large organised communities sitting in cities. Monasteries demanded the respect of the community and were often called upon to help the community. They also became key educational institutions because of the Benedict ideals (Benedict himself did not specify this in his rules, but by placing so much authority on the Abbots, monasteries often consciously took on this responsibility of education) This added a new dimension to the organisation of the Catholic Church - the authority of the Church was only going to grow - the organised and admired structure of the monasteries inevitably led them to become important educational and political power-houses.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
The201 - Nature and Grace
The201 - Wk2, Lecture 2 - Nature and Grace
St Augustine - Confessions 1, 1, 1. "Our Heart is restless until it rests in you"
Original Justice - What was it like for Adam and Eve before the fall? We only know via the genesis story.
-Supernatural gift of Grace
-Preternatural gifts present int he powers of the Soul
-Natural gifts of the powers of the soul themselves
Preternatural gifts present in the intellect, will, emotions and body
-Infused knowledge (vs ignorance)
-Loving obedience (vs malice)
-Spontaneous enjoyment of the virtues (vs concupiscence) [There's no struggle, concupiscence is the tendency to sin.]
-Absence of suffering and death (vs suffering and death)
Natural Gifts
We know this via theological investigation into the scriptures
{Can't imagine life like this - it would have no meaning}
The final state of Nature is the glorified state in heaven.
Definition of Grace: Catechism, #1997
St Augustine - Confessions 1, 1, 1. "Our Heart is restless until it rests in you"
Original Justice - What was it like for Adam and Eve before the fall? We only know via the genesis story.
-Supernatural gift of Grace
-Preternatural gifts present int he powers of the Soul
-Natural gifts of the powers of the soul themselves
Preternatural gifts present in the intellect, will, emotions and body
-Infused knowledge (vs ignorance)
-Loving obedience (vs malice)
-Spontaneous enjoyment of the virtues (vs concupiscence) [There's no struggle, concupiscence is the tendency to sin.]
-Absence of suffering and death (vs suffering and death)
Natural Gifts
We know this via theological investigation into the scriptures
{Can't imagine life like this - it would have no meaning}
The final state of Nature is the glorified state in heaven.
Definition of Grace: Catechism, #1997
Monday, 9 March 2009
Phi201 Plato's Timaeus
Phi201 Wk2, lec2, (lec4)
Recall - the Good rules the realm of the Forms as a unifying principle. The Forms constitue a Living Creature (Realm of being)
In Timaeus - a craftsman or demiurge takes the realm of Being as a model or archetype, and constructs in its image a likeness, which is our world of sense. Demiurge is not jealous, so he makes the world as good as possible, i.e spherical, 'a rotatory sphere devoid of organs & limbs'. But it is different fromt he blueprint in that it exists in time, whereas the blueprint, the world of Forms, is eternal.
Plato's Timaeus admits that this account is not true knowledge, but merely probably or 'likely' (and jokes that this is in accordance with the nature of the subject matter, which is a mere likeness). A truly precise account of the world of sense is not, for Plato, possible.
The 'rotatory' sphere is imbued with a World-Soul and this is the infusion of Person (Lodos) in pre-existing chastic matter (Different from Biblical creation)
"the god took over all that is visible - not at rest but in discordant and chastic motionism and brought it from disorder to order, deeming that the latter state was in every way better "
At the end of the B&T excerpt we see that archetypal Forms give rise to copies (or imitations or instantiations) which inhabit 'the receptacle' i.e. space. Typewriter analogy. Knowledge has forms as objects, opinion has copies or images or likenesses as objects. The receptacle is something in between: 'bastard reasoning' takes it as object.
This account is modified in Platinus. In Plato, transcendent Forms don't think, they're thought about, known about. Equally, in Aristotle, immanemt form, e.g. that of a statue doesn't think. But when you think about the statue, its form enters your mind, inhabiting a certain special intellectual matter. In this sense a form, for Aristotle, can think itself. Platinus applies this idea from Aristotle to Plato's transcendent forms, to the Living Creature, which is then understood as an Intellect (Nous).
Another modification: because world of Being itself is an agent for Platinus, you don't need a separate demiurge. The world of Being, Nous, Intellect, itself gives rise to the likeness, our world.
This process of giving-rise-to is known as emanation like the emanation of light from the sun.
Also, instead of the material world being created and imbued with soul, the Soul emanates directly from the intellect and in turn gives rise to matter. Temporarilty still distinguishes world=Soul from intellect.
Recall - the Good rules the realm of the Forms as a unifying principle. The Forms constitue a Living Creature (Realm of being)
In Timaeus - a craftsman or demiurge takes the realm of Being as a model or archetype, and constructs in its image a likeness, which is our world of sense. Demiurge is not jealous, so he makes the world as good as possible, i.e spherical, 'a rotatory sphere devoid of organs & limbs'. But it is different fromt he blueprint in that it exists in time, whereas the blueprint, the world of Forms, is eternal.
Plato's Timaeus admits that this account is not true knowledge, but merely probably or 'likely' (and jokes that this is in accordance with the nature of the subject matter, which is a mere likeness). A truly precise account of the world of sense is not, for Plato, possible.
The 'rotatory' sphere is imbued with a World-Soul and this is the infusion of Person (Lodos) in pre-existing chastic matter (Different from Biblical creation)
"the god took over all that is visible - not at rest but in discordant and chastic motionism and brought it from disorder to order, deeming that the latter state was in every way better "
At the end of the B&T excerpt we see that archetypal Forms give rise to copies (or imitations or instantiations) which inhabit 'the receptacle' i.e. space. Typewriter analogy. Knowledge has forms as objects, opinion has copies or images or likenesses as objects. The receptacle is something in between: 'bastard reasoning' takes it as object.
This account is modified in Platinus. In Plato, transcendent Forms don't think, they're thought about, known about. Equally, in Aristotle, immanemt form, e.g. that of a statue doesn't think. But when you think about the statue, its form enters your mind, inhabiting a certain special intellectual matter. In this sense a form, for Aristotle, can think itself. Platinus applies this idea from Aristotle to Plato's transcendent forms, to the Living Creature, which is then understood as an Intellect (Nous).
Another modification: because world of Being itself is an agent for Platinus, you don't need a separate demiurge. The world of Being, Nous, Intellect, itself gives rise to the likeness, our world.
This process of giving-rise-to is known as emanation like the emanation of light from the sun.
Also, instead of the material world being created and imbued with soul, the Soul emanates directly from the intellect and in turn gives rise to matter. Temporarilty still distinguishes world=Soul from intellect.
Lit201 Dante's Inferno
Lit201, Week 2, Lect1.
Dante's Inferno Canto I
Sun = God
Shewolf of lust represents the most dangerous desire.
virgil personifies human reason - and represents the importance of Roman influence on thought and theology.
Page 31 - stanza 9 - important point: Virgil can not go beyond a certain point (human reason can only take us so far, reason can know that there is a God, but reason cannot know through it's own strength the nature of God is the trinity, that only comes through faith. So reason has limits, and perhaps by realizing these limits, counter intuitively, we recognize its power.
Virgil is coming to lead Dante because Dante is in a state of ignorance, and yet Dante calls on God to guide them, and Virgil can never see this God.
Dante appeals to the muses - this is a convention that he subscribes to.
Dante's descends to the inferno whereas Oddyseus descends to the shades.
There are extended metaphors... especially for the ascetical life... making progress... falling back... trying again.
There is fear in heaven over the immortal destiny of Dante's soul - our lady fears for where Dante is, therefore she brings in Saint Lucy and Saint lucy brings in Beatrice, after getting permission to leave Heaven and she meets Dante in limbo.
Just as the God's schemed to bring about things on Earth - so do the Saints here conspire to facilitate Dante.
The number 3 is important - there are 3 saint here. The use of the triple rhyme reinforces the importance of number 3, 33 cantos in each book and there are 3 books, it's trinitarian.
Canto III The Gate of Hell. It isn't hell itself yet, it's almost there, and in some ways this is worse.
The Damned fear good, and yearn for him. They yearn for Hell. They yearn for what they fear, this is where there heart was at the moment of their death - it's the idea of divine retribution simply giving people what they want - they want this more then they want God. Whatever sin that has damned them to this place - they wanted that more than they wanted God at a particular moment. They yearn for what they fear in that double aspect.
Rhyming words are not accidents, they reinforce meanings in subtle ways, content and form are inextricably linked.
1st Circle of Hell - Canto IV - line 13, the Poet himself, has become pale and deathlike.
Limbo is in hell, it's not purgatory, and it's not heaven, it's full of virtuous pagans.
Some souls have left limbo, they are the souls of prophets, and awaiting for Christs act - the "harrowing of hell".
In honouring Dante (who honours them) they are honouring themselves (these poets).
Canto V - Circle 2 - Even the demons fall under the power of Heaven and must obey the commands from up high.
PARADOX: The love that drives and damns them.
Dante's Inferno Canto I
Sun = God
Shewolf of lust represents the most dangerous desire.
virgil personifies human reason - and represents the importance of Roman influence on thought and theology.
Page 31 - stanza 9 - important point: Virgil can not go beyond a certain point (human reason can only take us so far, reason can know that there is a God, but reason cannot know through it's own strength the nature of God is the trinity, that only comes through faith. So reason has limits, and perhaps by realizing these limits, counter intuitively, we recognize its power.
Virgil is coming to lead Dante because Dante is in a state of ignorance, and yet Dante calls on God to guide them, and Virgil can never see this God.
Dante appeals to the muses - this is a convention that he subscribes to.
Dante's descends to the inferno whereas Oddyseus descends to the shades.
There are extended metaphors... especially for the ascetical life... making progress... falling back... trying again.
There is fear in heaven over the immortal destiny of Dante's soul - our lady fears for where Dante is, therefore she brings in Saint Lucy and Saint lucy brings in Beatrice, after getting permission to leave Heaven and she meets Dante in limbo.
Just as the God's schemed to bring about things on Earth - so do the Saints here conspire to facilitate Dante.
The number 3 is important - there are 3 saint here. The use of the triple rhyme reinforces the importance of number 3, 33 cantos in each book and there are 3 books, it's trinitarian.
Canto III The Gate of Hell. It isn't hell itself yet, it's almost there, and in some ways this is worse.
The Damned fear good, and yearn for him. They yearn for Hell. They yearn for what they fear, this is where there heart was at the moment of their death - it's the idea of divine retribution simply giving people what they want - they want this more then they want God. Whatever sin that has damned them to this place - they wanted that more than they wanted God at a particular moment. They yearn for what they fear in that double aspect.
Rhyming words are not accidents, they reinforce meanings in subtle ways, content and form are inextricably linked.
1st Circle of Hell - Canto IV - line 13, the Poet himself, has become pale and deathlike.
Limbo is in hell, it's not purgatory, and it's not heaven, it's full of virtuous pagans.
Some souls have left limbo, they are the souls of prophets, and awaiting for Christs act - the "harrowing of hell".
In honouring Dante (who honours them) they are honouring themselves (these poets).
Canto V - Circle 2 - Even the demons fall under the power of Heaven and must obey the commands from up high.
PARADOX: The love that drives and damns them.
Sunday, 8 March 2009
The201 - Grace
Week 2, Lect1.
Grace
Paul expands upon grace in his Theology of Grace (powerpoint)
St Augustine on Grace, (power point)
Grace
Paul expands upon grace in his Theology of Grace (powerpoint)
St Augustine on Grace, (power point)
Phi201 - Platonism and Neoplatonism
Phi201 Week2 Lect1
Platonism & Neoplatonism
Overview of the elements of Platonism prominent in Medieval times. Much of this influence is filtered through the work of "Neoplatonists" - platonistically inclined philosophers from late antiquity the greatest of these was Platinus (204/5 - 270). He would have considered himself merely an expander of Plato. But introduced novel elements including some Airstototelian ideas that, weirdly, did nothing to bring the philosophy back down to earth - very extravagant & quasi-religious.
His writings are known from an edition by his pupil Parphyry - divided the writings into 6 lots of 9, giving us the Enneads - 'the nines'.
Almost none of the primary text of Plato or Platinus was available to medieval scholars. None of the Enneads and half of one Platonic dialogue was known.
Influence was felt at second hand - e.g through other writers who discussed platonistic philosophy (e.g the church fathers)
Let's start by looking at Plato's picture of the relation between forms and knowledge.
Forms belong to the realm of Being, they are the things that are most real.
The natural world belongs to the world of Becoming, they are the physical world. This world is vague, shifty and in flux. There's nothing that can really be known about this world, nothing stays true for very long.
Platonism & Neoplatonism
Overview of the elements of Platonism prominent in Medieval times. Much of this influence is filtered through the work of "Neoplatonists" - platonistically inclined philosophers from late antiquity the greatest of these was Platinus (204/5 - 270). He would have considered himself merely an expander of Plato. But introduced novel elements including some Airstototelian ideas that, weirdly, did nothing to bring the philosophy back down to earth - very extravagant & quasi-religious.
His writings are known from an edition by his pupil Parphyry - divided the writings into 6 lots of 9, giving us the Enneads - 'the nines'.
Almost none of the primary text of Plato or Platinus was available to medieval scholars. None of the Enneads and half of one Platonic dialogue was known.
Influence was felt at second hand - e.g through other writers who discussed platonistic philosophy (e.g the church fathers)
Let's start by looking at Plato's picture of the relation between forms and knowledge.
Forms belong to the realm of Being, they are the things that are most real.
The natural world belongs to the world of Becoming, they are the physical world. This world is vague, shifty and in flux. There's nothing that can really be known about this world, nothing stays true for very long.
His201
Week 2. Lect 1.
The Organisation of the Church, the Hierarchy, the Power of the Church Hierarchy.
The hierarchy grew slowly over the centuries from 1st to 4ad.
The roles of the hierarchy promoted education. The role of the monastery in education is large. Councils arose to deal with pressing issues. Adding another dimension to the organisation of the Church, that is, the communication between the Bishops to create some sort degree of uniformity, and thus creating political influence over local secular rulers.
The Latin Fathers - ("Latin fathers" because of the Language - many are western European, writing and communicating in Latin rather than Greek, primarily speaking.)
Some of the greatest writers and thinkers of Christian antiquity emerged during he middle to late 3rd century.
Jerome: (384-720)
Educated in Rome. Pursued studies in Antioch, Greece. Experienced a monastic life in Egypt. Then he translated a book (forget which one) from Greek to Latin - shoes the importance of the language in the dissemination of knowledge.
Augustine (354-430)
Using a powerful and persuasive argument to show the virtuosity of Christianity
What's relevant about these two figures so far, is that through their written works and their sermons, they inspired the Church to grow during these ages. Both were highly educated thinkers, well versed in Classical theology and philosophy, and highly skilled writers. They were also great Orators, they had to be able to communicate their ideas to a public that could not have read their works.
It's their capacity and ability to captivate and lead their audience through a logical rhetorical discussion.
Ambrose (337-397)
Military family, son of a prefect. Educated in the roman classics. Made his way up through the Roman secular politics.
Ambrose's episcopal appointment:
His rise is a great demonstration of the power of oratory and the power of charisma. He ascended straight to the rank of Bishop. Ambrose was not part of the Clergy - the people of Milan did not necessarily need a spiritual leader as much as a social, economic and political leader (he represented social, economic and political security). So this shows just how important the bishop can be in the psyche of the lay people - it's a melding of the Church and State - sometimes a confusion of the Church and State.
This coincided with the crowning of Valentinian the 2nd of the Western Empire - an infant empire, almost a vacuum of power.
Ambrose convinced Ambrose Valentinian II to veto senate plan to install altar of Victory in the Senate House. Shows the power of the bishop in quite extraordinary circumstances.
Ambrose negotiated peace at potential out break of civil war after being asked by the Emperor of the Eastern Empire to negotiate with the rebelling army at Gaul
Ambrose held great sway of Theodosius 1st (eastern emperor) - eg. Penance of the emperor over massacre at Thessalonica - (Greece, Constantinople) The people under control of the Eastern Emperor are rebelling and Theodosius massacres them. As punishment Ambrose told Theodosius that he had to enter an extended period of penance, in which the Emperor had to abstain from communion for several months. Not every bishop after Ambrose was able to hold such sway over his contemporaries, he was an exception.
Because of his political background Ambrose was able to influence others, coupled with his oratory skills and his education, he was a very powerful player - and because this is largely a society becoming Christian, with the emperors being Christian, he had even more power over them.
Increasing power of the bishops and the pope is due to the Church hierarchy that is developing and progressing very quickly.
The rise of the monasteries, the movement of power from southern italy up to Gaul, you have the likes of Constantine, and the power of the holy roman empire.
The Organisation of the Church, the Hierarchy, the Power of the Church Hierarchy.
The hierarchy grew slowly over the centuries from 1st to 4ad.
The roles of the hierarchy promoted education. The role of the monastery in education is large. Councils arose to deal with pressing issues. Adding another dimension to the organisation of the Church, that is, the communication between the Bishops to create some sort degree of uniformity, and thus creating political influence over local secular rulers.
The Latin Fathers - ("Latin fathers" because of the Language - many are western European, writing and communicating in Latin rather than Greek, primarily speaking.)
Some of the greatest writers and thinkers of Christian antiquity emerged during he middle to late 3rd century.
Jerome: (384-720)
Educated in Rome. Pursued studies in Antioch, Greece. Experienced a monastic life in Egypt. Then he translated a book (forget which one) from Greek to Latin - shoes the importance of the language in the dissemination of knowledge.
Augustine (354-430)
Using a powerful and persuasive argument to show the virtuosity of Christianity
What's relevant about these two figures so far, is that through their written works and their sermons, they inspired the Church to grow during these ages. Both were highly educated thinkers, well versed in Classical theology and philosophy, and highly skilled writers. They were also great Orators, they had to be able to communicate their ideas to a public that could not have read their works.
It's their capacity and ability to captivate and lead their audience through a logical rhetorical discussion.
Ambrose (337-397)
Military family, son of a prefect. Educated in the roman classics. Made his way up through the Roman secular politics.
Ambrose's episcopal appointment:
His rise is a great demonstration of the power of oratory and the power of charisma. He ascended straight to the rank of Bishop. Ambrose was not part of the Clergy - the people of Milan did not necessarily need a spiritual leader as much as a social, economic and political leader (he represented social, economic and political security). So this shows just how important the bishop can be in the psyche of the lay people - it's a melding of the Church and State - sometimes a confusion of the Church and State.
This coincided with the crowning of Valentinian the 2nd of the Western Empire - an infant empire, almost a vacuum of power.
Ambrose convinced Ambrose Valentinian II to veto senate plan to install altar of Victory in the Senate House. Shows the power of the bishop in quite extraordinary circumstances.
Ambrose negotiated peace at potential out break of civil war after being asked by the Emperor of the Eastern Empire to negotiate with the rebelling army at Gaul
Ambrose held great sway of Theodosius 1st (eastern emperor) - eg. Penance of the emperor over massacre at Thessalonica - (Greece, Constantinople) The people under control of the Eastern Emperor are rebelling and Theodosius massacres them. As punishment Ambrose told Theodosius that he had to enter an extended period of penance, in which the Emperor had to abstain from communion for several months. Not every bishop after Ambrose was able to hold such sway over his contemporaries, he was an exception.
Because of his political background Ambrose was able to influence others, coupled with his oratory skills and his education, he was a very powerful player - and because this is largely a society becoming Christian, with the emperors being Christian, he had even more power over them.
Increasing power of the bishops and the pope is due to the Church hierarchy that is developing and progressing very quickly.
The rise of the monasteries, the movement of power from southern italy up to Gaul, you have the likes of Constantine, and the power of the holy roman empire.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
The201
2nd lecture.
Sacramental Theology
God's Favour or Grace
Polygenism - Pious the 12th.
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin.
Original Sin - is the need for every man to be reedeemed by Christ ( for the redemption of Christ) How else would we need Christ?
humanity's existential situation is flawed. it's a situation that involves much that is evil, error, conflicting interests, moral deficiencies, cultural distortions, it's the story of what it means to commit sin.
Sacramental Theology
God's Favour or Grace
Polygenism - Pious the 12th.
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin.
Original Sin - is the need for every man to be reedeemed by Christ ( for the redemption of Christ) How else would we need Christ?
humanity's existential situation is flawed. it's a situation that involves much that is evil, error, conflicting interests, moral deficiencies, cultural distortions, it's the story of what it means to commit sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
