King Harald's Saga
Snorri Sturluson
Good stuff Snorri! Western Europe in the 11th century was violent and action packed. Snorri captures this exceptionally well in the saga of King Harald. What I enjoy about this account is the writing style. It's witty, economical and sharp. While the stories of other sagas or even ancient epic poetry might be more enthralling, there is something about Snorri's writing style that makes him almost more enjoyable to read. I think it might be the fact that he moves the story along without repeating himself over and over again. I'm looking forward to trying to squeeze another Viking Saga in before New Year, though my night stand collection of books may prevent this from coming to fruition.
Friday, November 8, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Busted Flush
Life has become
Fairly disappointing:
Shouldn't have chased dreams
Shouldn't have chased the rush
Cause here I sit:
Four cards good.
A busted flush.
Fairly disappointing:
Shouldn't have chased dreams
Shouldn't have chased the rush
Cause here I sit:
Four cards good.
A busted flush.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Dear Malta
Dear England:
I wrote to you a number of years ago with no response. Again I find myself at the beginning stages of the American election cycle. Again I find myself face...
Well. England has a bit of a Brexit problem. I probably won't get a response. That's probably true of all the islands right there and thereabouts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Malta,
Thank you for a taking a moment to read my request for asylum. As you may have noticed in the past few years The United States of America has become a beacon of mental instability. We are so divided and so full of hate that we can't seem to enjoy anything any more without it being somehow offensive to someone else. Then to better our civil discourse somebody that neither enjoyed the event nor was offended by the event decides that they should champion the cause of the offended (who probably had already forgotten that they were offended). These champions of justice or, social warriors as they are both righteously and pejoratively called, create the echo chamber in which hate takes shape. Other unconnected people with an exactly opposite political bent then weigh in on the matter which they knew nothing about until the social warrior had brought the obscure event to their attention. From this exchange creates a back and forth that is nothing short of abject hatred. Never mind that the two arguing parties have more in common with one another than differences and that temperamentally they are suited to be excellent friends. Their political differences, these political ideals that govern all their conversations and none of their daily actions, are too self-important and prevent any kind of kindredship between the parties. This process is repeated millions times a day and then plastered all over the internet and fed to us as news.
I was so wearied by the Republican Primaries in the last election that by the time of the General Election debates you could have knocked me over with a feather. The candidates decided to complete their easy task with sledge hammers. Through the whole year I found myself waiting, desperately for November to come and put a silence to the madness that was the election build-up. I figured of course, that the election would solve the problem. Election day would be a deafening crescendo for sure. Then for a week or two the losing side would raise holy hell but slowly their disappointment and anger would dissipate into the more comfortable resignation. I admit that I thought it would not matter who won. One candidate would shift to the left upon winning and the other would shift to the right. There would be all sorts of demagoguery in front of the cameras and behind the veil some work would get done. I would get a respite from the relentless nature of the previous campaign.
That however has not been the case. The holy hell was raised and it kept on raising. Three years in and we are still hearing about a stolen election. Nothing is really being done in Washington but its forked tongue is screaming out warnings and apocalyptic narratives at such a pace that it is nearly impossible to make sense of the whole. So instead of making sense of the whole we latch on to a single narrative thread and treat it as the main plot and color our entire worldview around it. A birth certificate? Some Tax Reports? Quid pro quo? Deep state? Which of these one attaches ones self to will change the way the world is at appears to the holder. It makes communication across imaginary political lines impossible and the few that try are labeled traitors to their kind, even if they did not know that they had a kind prior to becoming a traitor.
It's all exhausting. The modern world as it is means that the election cycle is going to be brutal. But, that should last a year for most, average Americans. The political junkies and the local politicians have chosen their vice and let the suffer its consequences as they reap its benefits. I want no part of that. In this new world the election cycle seems to have no end. If one is reelected then we have another four years of all the chaos on top of the year we already have left. If he is removed through anything by other than the election it will be seen as a coup d'etat even by a large portion of moderates because there will be no true smoking gun. The closest that has come so far is the Mulvaney quip about getting over it. I think, through no intention or planning on his part, Trump has been the most transparent of all Presidents in modern history. Mulvaney basically said that, "America puts political pressure on people to achieve its agenda. This is how it's been done for years. You know it. I know it. Nothing new here. Move along". He's right. He's just an idiot it for saying it. But he's a genius for saying it because it will rile up a vocal part of the base with him using the system against itself. This will be spun as a heroic act in some circles. Others won't even know how to understand this logic, let alone how to responds. There will be rage. If one of the Democrats win there could very well be a smattering of small wannabe militias roaming the streets causing unrest after the election. There could be people out there in the name of journalism provoking violent reaction to the election so that they can gain clicks regardless of which side wins. I want no part of that.
I am writing you today to ask for a way to come and stay with you. I am willing to work, I simply require the legal framework from you. Please don't turn me away because I'm too tired to deal with this for the rest of my life, which will be greatly shortened by being bombarded by this nonsense at every waking hour.
Yours Truly.
I wrote to you a number of years ago with no response. Again I find myself at the beginning stages of the American election cycle. Again I find myself face...
Well. England has a bit of a Brexit problem. I probably won't get a response. That's probably true of all the islands right there and thereabouts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Malta,
Thank you for a taking a moment to read my request for asylum. As you may have noticed in the past few years The United States of America has become a beacon of mental instability. We are so divided and so full of hate that we can't seem to enjoy anything any more without it being somehow offensive to someone else. Then to better our civil discourse somebody that neither enjoyed the event nor was offended by the event decides that they should champion the cause of the offended (who probably had already forgotten that they were offended). These champions of justice or, social warriors as they are both righteously and pejoratively called, create the echo chamber in which hate takes shape. Other unconnected people with an exactly opposite political bent then weigh in on the matter which they knew nothing about until the social warrior had brought the obscure event to their attention. From this exchange creates a back and forth that is nothing short of abject hatred. Never mind that the two arguing parties have more in common with one another than differences and that temperamentally they are suited to be excellent friends. Their political differences, these political ideals that govern all their conversations and none of their daily actions, are too self-important and prevent any kind of kindredship between the parties. This process is repeated millions times a day and then plastered all over the internet and fed to us as news.
I was so wearied by the Republican Primaries in the last election that by the time of the General Election debates you could have knocked me over with a feather. The candidates decided to complete their easy task with sledge hammers. Through the whole year I found myself waiting, desperately for November to come and put a silence to the madness that was the election build-up. I figured of course, that the election would solve the problem. Election day would be a deafening crescendo for sure. Then for a week or two the losing side would raise holy hell but slowly their disappointment and anger would dissipate into the more comfortable resignation. I admit that I thought it would not matter who won. One candidate would shift to the left upon winning and the other would shift to the right. There would be all sorts of demagoguery in front of the cameras and behind the veil some work would get done. I would get a respite from the relentless nature of the previous campaign.
That however has not been the case. The holy hell was raised and it kept on raising. Three years in and we are still hearing about a stolen election. Nothing is really being done in Washington but its forked tongue is screaming out warnings and apocalyptic narratives at such a pace that it is nearly impossible to make sense of the whole. So instead of making sense of the whole we latch on to a single narrative thread and treat it as the main plot and color our entire worldview around it. A birth certificate? Some Tax Reports? Quid pro quo? Deep state? Which of these one attaches ones self to will change the way the world is at appears to the holder. It makes communication across imaginary political lines impossible and the few that try are labeled traitors to their kind, even if they did not know that they had a kind prior to becoming a traitor.
It's all exhausting. The modern world as it is means that the election cycle is going to be brutal. But, that should last a year for most, average Americans. The political junkies and the local politicians have chosen their vice and let the suffer its consequences as they reap its benefits. I want no part of that. In this new world the election cycle seems to have no end. If one is reelected then we have another four years of all the chaos on top of the year we already have left. If he is removed through anything by other than the election it will be seen as a coup d'etat even by a large portion of moderates because there will be no true smoking gun. The closest that has come so far is the Mulvaney quip about getting over it. I think, through no intention or planning on his part, Trump has been the most transparent of all Presidents in modern history. Mulvaney basically said that, "America puts political pressure on people to achieve its agenda. This is how it's been done for years. You know it. I know it. Nothing new here. Move along". He's right. He's just an idiot it for saying it. But he's a genius for saying it because it will rile up a vocal part of the base with him using the system against itself. This will be spun as a heroic act in some circles. Others won't even know how to understand this logic, let alone how to responds. There will be rage. If one of the Democrats win there could very well be a smattering of small wannabe militias roaming the streets causing unrest after the election. There could be people out there in the name of journalism provoking violent reaction to the election so that they can gain clicks regardless of which side wins. I want no part of that.
I am writing you today to ask for a way to come and stay with you. I am willing to work, I simply require the legal framework from you. Please don't turn me away because I'm too tired to deal with this for the rest of my life, which will be greatly shortened by being bombarded by this nonsense at every waking hour.
Yours Truly.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Goodreads: Dead Souls
| I loved Diary of a Madman, The Nose and The Overcoat. I did not love Dead Souls. The writing in the book is excellent. The story was less so. I believe Gogol might have been on to something when he set out to destroy the manuscript. The book reminds me of listening to an artist tell you how he came up with the song. A couple of great lines were written and then some filler was added. Slowly the filler was replaced and finally totally removed so that the final product can be presented. Dead Souls, which finishes mid sentence, is somehow considered a complete work. I don’t think Gogol would have considered it finished. It being unfinished reminds me of Kafka’s The Castle. His use of a narrator’s voice in providing author’s notes and context to the plot remind me of Vonnegut’s Timequake. Overall, I preferred both Kafka and Vonnegut to Gogol. Both Kafka and Gogol tackle the absurdity of the bureaucracy of their world in their works. What I found in Kafka was a resignation to the situation and a resolve to carry on a duty in the face of its futility. What I saw in Gogol’s approach was a stretch to create a moral imperative out of doing one’s duty. In that way I found Kafka’s book much more true to life. In Timequake I thought Vonnegut’s use of his narrator breaking the fourth wall was more effective because it fit in better with the overall feel to the book. Gogol’s use of it makes it feel as if the device has been superimposed on the story. While it informs the plot and deepens the story it feels like reading the book and a commentary on the book simultaneously. It loses something of its magic in the execution. What also made Gogol less entertaining to read compared to the other two was his lack of biting humor. He has it. He seems to have left it out to be more gentle to the subject he loves, Russia. Kafka and Vonnegut are much more ruthless in their satire of their respective worlds. Gogol’s lack of a cutting edge in the book makes it feel like a limp-wristed hand shake. But in shaking hands with this novel one can’t help but be impressed by the softness of its touch or the beauty of its form. That’s why it gets three stars instead of two for me. Plus, Chichikov is way less likable than K. or Kilgore Trout. |
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Tonight
Tonight we dance.
Tonight we mourn.
Beneath the moon.
Beneath the stars.
The pale moonlight bathes the beach.
The waves crash along the jagged shore.
I sit watching.
Beneath the moon.
Beneath the stars.
With every wave the ocean
Deposits what it wills
Then drags back the sand from the shore.
Unsuspecting grains of sand
are drowned at the bottom of the sea.
Tonight we dance.
Tonight we mourn.
Beneath the moon.
Beneath the stars.
Tonight we mourn.
Beneath the moon.
Beneath the stars.
The pale moonlight bathes the beach.
The waves crash along the jagged shore.
I sit watching.
Beneath the moon.
Beneath the stars.
With every wave the ocean
Deposits what it wills
Then drags back the sand from the shore.
Unsuspecting grains of sand
are drowned at the bottom of the sea.
Tonight we dance.
Tonight we mourn.
Beneath the moon.
Beneath the stars.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Goodreads: Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot
Four Quartets
T.S. Eliot
This is a collection of four poems: Burnt Norton, East Coker, The Dry Salvages and Little Gidding. Of the four I think I enjoyed East Coker and Burnt Norton the most, followed by The Dry Salvages and way at the bottom would I rank Little Gidding. But I don't read much poetry and wouldn't be the greatest judge of it and it would be entirely possible for me to reread the book later on and find my order of best to worst to be inverted. So much of poetry is capturing a mood between the poet and the reader and when the reader is not in the mood to be caught in a mood even the best poets may struggle. Overall the four poems together are good. There are a few lines that Eliot writes in these four that jumped off the page for me.
Burnt Norton II
"Only through time time is conquered"
Burnt Norton III
"Distracted from distraction by distraction
Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
Tumid apathy with no concentration"
Burnt Norton V
"That which is only living can only die. Words, after speech, reach into silence".
East Coker I
"In my beginning is my end"
East Coker II
"The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless"
East Coker III
"In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not"
The Dry Salvages II
"We cannot think ... of a future that is not liable like the past, to have no destination"
"We had the experience but missed the meaning"
Little Gidding V
"And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time"
Eliot seems to be struggling with something in these poems. He is struggling with time itself. Has it all been wasted in his choices? Have we been distracted by empty, meaningless things as time has passed us by? I think I like these poems because while Eliot acknowledges this struggle he is ultimately optimistic in his outlook. Sure, we struggled after the experience and missed the meaning, but ultimately all the roads will eventually lead us to home where we will be contented.
T.S. Eliot
This is a collection of four poems: Burnt Norton, East Coker, The Dry Salvages and Little Gidding. Of the four I think I enjoyed East Coker and Burnt Norton the most, followed by The Dry Salvages and way at the bottom would I rank Little Gidding. But I don't read much poetry and wouldn't be the greatest judge of it and it would be entirely possible for me to reread the book later on and find my order of best to worst to be inverted. So much of poetry is capturing a mood between the poet and the reader and when the reader is not in the mood to be caught in a mood even the best poets may struggle. Overall the four poems together are good. There are a few lines that Eliot writes in these four that jumped off the page for me.
Burnt Norton II
"Only through time time is conquered"
Burnt Norton III
"Distracted from distraction by distraction
Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
Tumid apathy with no concentration"
Burnt Norton V
"That which is only living can only die. Words, after speech, reach into silence".
East Coker I
"In my beginning is my end"
East Coker II
"The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless"
East Coker III
"In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not"
The Dry Salvages II
"We cannot think ... of a future that is not liable like the past, to have no destination"
"We had the experience but missed the meaning"
Little Gidding V
"And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time"
Eliot seems to be struggling with something in these poems. He is struggling with time itself. Has it all been wasted in his choices? Have we been distracted by empty, meaningless things as time has passed us by? I think I like these poems because while Eliot acknowledges this struggle he is ultimately optimistic in his outlook. Sure, we struggled after the experience and missed the meaning, but ultimately all the roads will eventually lead us to home where we will be contented.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Song of the Vikings
Goodreads
Song of the Vikings: Snorri and the Making of Norse Myths
Nancy Marie Brown
I thoroughly appreciated this book. It's not as dry as reading commentaries on the sagas and not as dumbed down as some books on mythology that seem to be aimed at an adolescent audience. I love how Brown weaved the biography of Snorri Sturluson into the myths he compiled and created. I was expecting more myth and less biography. But, I think I prefer the approach that she took with the book.
She wades into the waters of how Tolkien and Gaiman have built onto mythology. I think she was less successful in this endeavor than in incorporating the Sturluson biography, but it is still an interesting approach to the myths.
Song of the Vikings: Snorri and the Making of Norse Myths
Nancy Marie Brown
I thoroughly appreciated this book. It's not as dry as reading commentaries on the sagas and not as dumbed down as some books on mythology that seem to be aimed at an adolescent audience. I love how Brown weaved the biography of Snorri Sturluson into the myths he compiled and created. I was expecting more myth and less biography. But, I think I prefer the approach that she took with the book.
She wades into the waters of how Tolkien and Gaiman have built onto mythology. I think she was less successful in this endeavor than in incorporating the Sturluson biography, but it is still an interesting approach to the myths.
Thursday, October 3, 2019
Travel Guide: Delhi, Agra and Jaipur
Goodreads:
DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Delhi, Agra & Jaipur
Anuradha Chaturvedi
Travel books are intrinsically difficult to rate until one has traveled. While I think Rick Steves' setup in his books is the clearest and easiest to follow of all the travel books I've read, this one has made me excited to go to Delhi. That's what it is supposed to do. It's real success will be measured when I go.
DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Delhi, Agra & Jaipur
Anuradha Chaturvedi
Travel books are intrinsically difficult to rate until one has traveled. While I think Rick Steves' setup in his books is the clearest and easiest to follow of all the travel books I've read, this one has made me excited to go to Delhi. That's what it is supposed to do. It's real success will be measured when I go.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Goodreads: Days of Reading
Goodreads:
Days of Reading
Marcel Proust
I have not read Proust since my first try at college (roughly twenty years ago). I remember being overwhelmed by him. Part of that is the time constraints of a college semester. That meant we had two weeks to read In Search of Lost Time in a span of about two and a half weeks. Proust had, as indicated in Days of Reading, a much larger love of reading than I did at 17/18. I still struggle with all the many things that pull me in thousands of directions and won't allow me the time to read as much as I would like. If I tried to read that single novel in seven volumes in the span of two and a half weeks I would undoubtedly resort to what made the endeavor successful the last time - Cliff Notes. It's funny though that Proust explains, both explicitly and implicitly, why his masterpiece is so long.
Explicitly, he notes the length of his novel is long because he doesn't conceive of the novel as a succinct plot with a few characters. Days of Reading began as a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity". This is the implicit reason for the lengthy novel. We know that this essay was supposed to be a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity" because Proust tells us at the very end that is what he had initially set out to write. He was completely unsuccessful and instead wrote something completely different and promised to give the article at a later date.
I was expecting a short story when I picked this book up. I didn't read the cover and was struck unawares when it turned out to be a couple essays on literary criticism, art, aesthetics and the nature of truth. I'll have to reread this with a notebook some time later to grasp everything, but Proust has such a beautiful and flowing style that one can't help but admire his writing. If Proust is correct what draws me to him in his style is my recognition of his quality of vision and his role as the doorman, welcoming all readers into his own private universe.
Proust compares readings to an number of things: loving relationships, religious experience, friendships, telephone calls and more. He tends to elevate reading above all the comparisons he makes, but he still subordinates it to truth and creating. Reading is a form of friendship, a pure form. If we spend an evening with a book we do so because we choose to, not because it is imposed on us. "Reading is on the threshold of the spiritual life; it can introduce us to it: it does not constitute it" (Proust, 72). "Reading is for us the instigator whose magic keys have opened the odor to those dwelling places deep within us that we would not have known how to enter" (Proust, 75). For Proust, the truth is something that is deeply buried on the inside of the individual. The only way to make truth real is to create something out of that internal truth. Reading allows us to dig in there; but, it is a means and not an end.
There are two other quotes i underlined in the book that I'll add here so I don't forget them that aren't really relevant to the review. I just thought the were interesting and masterful sentences. "Love-affairs with living people may sometimes have a sordid origin which is later purified" (Proust, 39). "And so this voluntary servitude is the beginning of freedom" (Proust, 42). Two contradictory realities brought into harmony in such a short space of words: Proust was capable of succinctness! I think though, Proust very much enjoyed the sound of his own voice on the page. However, I type this in the complete knowledge, having brought to the cusp of this truth by reading this book, that I enjoy the sound of my voice at least as much as he enjoyed his.
Days of Reading
Marcel Proust
I have not read Proust since my first try at college (roughly twenty years ago). I remember being overwhelmed by him. Part of that is the time constraints of a college semester. That meant we had two weeks to read In Search of Lost Time in a span of about two and a half weeks. Proust had, as indicated in Days of Reading, a much larger love of reading than I did at 17/18. I still struggle with all the many things that pull me in thousands of directions and won't allow me the time to read as much as I would like. If I tried to read that single novel in seven volumes in the span of two and a half weeks I would undoubtedly resort to what made the endeavor successful the last time - Cliff Notes. It's funny though that Proust explains, both explicitly and implicitly, why his masterpiece is so long.
Explicitly, he notes the length of his novel is long because he doesn't conceive of the novel as a succinct plot with a few characters. Days of Reading began as a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity". This is the implicit reason for the lengthy novel. We know that this essay was supposed to be a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity" because Proust tells us at the very end that is what he had initially set out to write. He was completely unsuccessful and instead wrote something completely different and promised to give the article at a later date.
I was expecting a short story when I picked this book up. I didn't read the cover and was struck unawares when it turned out to be a couple essays on literary criticism, art, aesthetics and the nature of truth. I'll have to reread this with a notebook some time later to grasp everything, but Proust has such a beautiful and flowing style that one can't help but admire his writing. If Proust is correct what draws me to him in his style is my recognition of his quality of vision and his role as the doorman, welcoming all readers into his own private universe.
Proust compares readings to an number of things: loving relationships, religious experience, friendships, telephone calls and more. He tends to elevate reading above all the comparisons he makes, but he still subordinates it to truth and creating. Reading is a form of friendship, a pure form. If we spend an evening with a book we do so because we choose to, not because it is imposed on us. "Reading is on the threshold of the spiritual life; it can introduce us to it: it does not constitute it" (Proust, 72). "Reading is for us the instigator whose magic keys have opened the odor to those dwelling places deep within us that we would not have known how to enter" (Proust, 75). For Proust, the truth is something that is deeply buried on the inside of the individual. The only way to make truth real is to create something out of that internal truth. Reading allows us to dig in there; but, it is a means and not an end.
There are two other quotes i underlined in the book that I'll add here so I don't forget them that aren't really relevant to the review. I just thought the were interesting and masterful sentences. "Love-affairs with living people may sometimes have a sordid origin which is later purified" (Proust, 39). "And so this voluntary servitude is the beginning of freedom" (Proust, 42). Two contradictory realities brought into harmony in such a short space of words: Proust was capable of succinctness! I think though, Proust very much enjoyed the sound of his own voice on the page. However, I type this in the complete knowledge, having brought to the cusp of this truth by reading this book, that I enjoy the sound of my voice at least as much as he enjoyed his.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
The Twelfth Century
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XI The Twelfth Century
Let me start by saying that I find the word, "Twelfth" to be one of the strangest in the English language. It takes a lot of concentration for me to say it without sounding a lot younger than I was on my twelfth birthday.
Four aspects of the 12th century that are especially interesting
1) The continued conflict of empire and papacy
2) The rise of the Lombard cities
3) The Crusades
4) The growth of scholasticism
The papacy continued to grow stronger in the 12th century, generally defeating the emperor and the kings of England and France and also having more strength over bishops, who were on the whole, more virtuous than prior to the reforms of the 11th.
The Italian, Lomabard cities of Northern Italy were able to fight off the Emperor. Their independence allowed the papacy to grow stronger as well as there was a buffer between Rome and the Germans.
The power of the popes was increased by the religious zeal and propaganda of the Crusades.
The first scholastic philosopher was Roscelin, born around 1050. He disappeared around 1120.
Abelard is a more well known scholastic whose writings have survived more in tact than the barely knowable Roscelin.
Abelard's most famous works, "Yes and No" show he loved disputation itself as he gave dialectical arguments for and against a variety of topics. His works being regarded as heretical might have arisen from his love of disputation as he was generally hostile to a lot of other thinkers. His lapses into actual heretical doctrine were fixed in his lifetime.
In addition to the rise of scholasticism there was a rise in mystical expressions as evident by the rise of Bernard of Clairvaux.
"The whole of early scholasticism may be viewed, politically, as an offshoot of the Church's struggle for power" (Russell, 441). The earliest scholastics were primarily French, which the papacy used as a counterbalance to the power of the Emperor.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XI The Twelfth Century
Let me start by saying that I find the word, "Twelfth" to be one of the strangest in the English language. It takes a lot of concentration for me to say it without sounding a lot younger than I was on my twelfth birthday.
Four aspects of the 12th century that are especially interesting
1) The continued conflict of empire and papacy
2) The rise of the Lombard cities
3) The Crusades
4) The growth of scholasticism
The papacy continued to grow stronger in the 12th century, generally defeating the emperor and the kings of England and France and also having more strength over bishops, who were on the whole, more virtuous than prior to the reforms of the 11th.
The Italian, Lomabard cities of Northern Italy were able to fight off the Emperor. Their independence allowed the papacy to grow stronger as well as there was a buffer between Rome and the Germans.
The power of the popes was increased by the religious zeal and propaganda of the Crusades.
The first scholastic philosopher was Roscelin, born around 1050. He disappeared around 1120.
Abelard is a more well known scholastic whose writings have survived more in tact than the barely knowable Roscelin.
Abelard's most famous works, "Yes and No" show he loved disputation itself as he gave dialectical arguments for and against a variety of topics. His works being regarded as heretical might have arisen from his love of disputation as he was generally hostile to a lot of other thinkers. His lapses into actual heretical doctrine were fixed in his lifetime.
In addition to the rise of scholasticism there was a rise in mystical expressions as evident by the rise of Bernard of Clairvaux.
"The whole of early scholasticism may be viewed, politically, as an offshoot of the Church's struggle for power" (Russell, 441). The earliest scholastics were primarily French, which the papacy used as a counterbalance to the power of the Emperor.
Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The Hegira took place in 622. Syria was invaded and conquered by 636. By 650 Persia was conquered. India was invaded in 664. Egypt was conquered in 642. Carthage in 697. Spain was conquered by 712. But at the battle of Tours in 732 the Western expansion of Islam (outside of Sicily and Italy) was halted.
Islam began as a simple monotheism, a revival against graven images and a duty-bound ideal to conquer the world.
The various sects of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians living under the conquest of the Arabs were free to practice their religion if they paid a fee. "The populations, moreover, in order to escape the tribute, very largely abandoned Christianity for Islam" (Russell, 421).
The Arabs were primarily concerned with conquest and plunder. Because wealth was their primary concern and not religion, they were able to rule a large territory of people that didn't share the same religion as their rulers. "The Persians, on the contrary, have been, from the earliest times, deeply religious and highly speculative. After their conversion, they made out of Islam something much more interesting, more religious, and more philosophical, than had been imagined by the Prophet and his kinsmen" (Russell, 421).
The Sunni and Shiah split right after the death of the Prophet. The Persians, who became Shiah, helped overthrow the first Islamic rulers, the Umayyad dynasty in the middle of the 8th century.
The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads were much more fanatical in their adherence to doctrine.
Trade was essential in the Islamic world and the trader was venerated because Mohammed had been a trader.
"The distinctive culture of the Muslim world, though it began in Syria, soon came to flourish most
in the Eastern and Western extremities, Persia and Spain" (Russell, 423).
Kindi was the first to write philosophy in Arabic. The Persians were heavily influenced by India. Firdousi, (Ferdowsi) the author of Shahnama comes from this tradition and is regarded as to be the equal of Homer.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was born in Bukhara (Modern Uzbekistan) in 980 and lived until 1037. His philosophy is more Aristotelian and less Neoplatonic than his Muslim predecesssors.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was born in Cordova and lived from 1126-1198. Averroes was often seen as a heretic and after the Reconquista Islamic philosophy stopped being speculative. In Spain because of the Christian encroachment and in the rest of the Islamic world because a rigid orthodoxy became the norm.
"Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form." (Russell, 426).
Maimonides, the important Spanish Jewish philosopher spent most of his life in Cairo. He reconciled Aristotle with Jewish theology and believed that "philosophy and revelation come together in the knowledge of God. The pursuit of truth is a religious duty" (Russell, 427).
The Jews considered Maimonides to be a heretic and even enlisted the Christian ecclesiastical apparatus to persecute him.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The Hegira took place in 622. Syria was invaded and conquered by 636. By 650 Persia was conquered. India was invaded in 664. Egypt was conquered in 642. Carthage in 697. Spain was conquered by 712. But at the battle of Tours in 732 the Western expansion of Islam (outside of Sicily and Italy) was halted.
Islam began as a simple monotheism, a revival against graven images and a duty-bound ideal to conquer the world.
The various sects of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians living under the conquest of the Arabs were free to practice their religion if they paid a fee. "The populations, moreover, in order to escape the tribute, very largely abandoned Christianity for Islam" (Russell, 421).
The Arabs were primarily concerned with conquest and plunder. Because wealth was their primary concern and not religion, they were able to rule a large territory of people that didn't share the same religion as their rulers. "The Persians, on the contrary, have been, from the earliest times, deeply religious and highly speculative. After their conversion, they made out of Islam something much more interesting, more religious, and more philosophical, than had been imagined by the Prophet and his kinsmen" (Russell, 421).
The Sunni and Shiah split right after the death of the Prophet. The Persians, who became Shiah, helped overthrow the first Islamic rulers, the Umayyad dynasty in the middle of the 8th century.
The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads were much more fanatical in their adherence to doctrine.
Trade was essential in the Islamic world and the trader was venerated because Mohammed had been a trader.
"The distinctive culture of the Muslim world, though it began in Syria, soon came to flourish most
in the Eastern and Western extremities, Persia and Spain" (Russell, 423).
Kindi was the first to write philosophy in Arabic. The Persians were heavily influenced by India. Firdousi, (Ferdowsi) the author of Shahnama comes from this tradition and is regarded as to be the equal of Homer.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was born in Bukhara (Modern Uzbekistan) in 980 and lived until 1037. His philosophy is more Aristotelian and less Neoplatonic than his Muslim predecesssors.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was born in Cordova and lived from 1126-1198. Averroes was often seen as a heretic and after the Reconquista Islamic philosophy stopped being speculative. In Spain because of the Christian encroachment and in the rest of the Islamic world because a rigid orthodoxy became the norm.
"Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form." (Russell, 426).
Maimonides, the important Spanish Jewish philosopher spent most of his life in Cairo. He reconciled Aristotle with Jewish theology and believed that "philosophy and revelation come together in the knowledge of God. The pursuit of truth is a religious duty" (Russell, 427).
The Jews considered Maimonides to be a heretic and even enlisted the Christian ecclesiastical apparatus to persecute him.
Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Goodreads: The Song of Roland
This is another book that I've rated a bit lower than I probably should have because of the lack of half stars on Goodreads. Can we please get halfstars?
The Song of Roland is great epic poetry, a wonderfully simple story with blood and guts, extreme violence and a great victory. It's also good propaganda. In that way, The Song of Roland is extremely successful. But, much of the complaining about it from modern readers is that it is overly simple and it depicts a very black and white morality: What is Christian is right and what is pagan/Islamic is not. There aren't too many complex characters in the story, which for epic poetry is ok. Charlemagne is the archetype for the godly, good, strong king. King Marsile, his opposite is weak, duplicitous and an archetype for a bad king. Baligant the emir, is a noble enemy worthy of Charlemagne. If Charlemagne only defeated King Marsile, the victory wouldn't have been good enough to write home about. It's like when Alabama beats Alabama A&M. It's supposed to happen. But, when Alabama beats somebody real, the two times a season they are faced with that situation, Alabama gets epics written about it that can reach an audience beyond the sycophantic south. But, I digress.
Roland is the perfect Medieval knight, brave yet pious. His death happens valiantly, but he still has time to get one last kill, pray to God for forgiveness of his sins, and die facing the country he is conquering in his death. I think the most modern character in the sense that he is the most complex is Ganelon, the traitor.
Ganelon, like Roland, has issues with pride. While Roland overcomes his pride to die a noble death, Ganelon succumbs to it and betrays his king for the sake of his own pride. He argues that his actions weren't driven treason but a personal feud with Roland. The fact that he isn't just killed upon returning to the capital, but is forced to undergo a trial by his peers that is decided in a personal combat between one of his liegeman and one that is personally loyal to Charlemagne is the scene I found the most compelling. Pinabel, the noble fighting for Ganelon is seen as good liegeman and because of it only God's intervention in the combat saves his opponent Theirry. Theirry has to win because he is the representative of the righteous Charlemagne and because treachery not only sinks the traitor, but those around him: "He who betrayeth, aye he slayeth himself and other men."
The other figure that I'm all of a sudden intrigued by is Turpin, the warrior archbishop. The Middle Ages is full of holy men doing war and I wouldn't have thought much of it until recently reading a book on Byzantine history. The idea of a warrior priest was rejected by the East. How different would have history been if the whole of the old Roman Empire had embraced the marriage between warriors and priests? How different would it have been if the West had shared the East's natural abhorrence to the concept of a priest carrying a sword? It's interesting how a story can change each time your read it.
The Song of Roland is great epic poetry, a wonderfully simple story with blood and guts, extreme violence and a great victory. It's also good propaganda. In that way, The Song of Roland is extremely successful. But, much of the complaining about it from modern readers is that it is overly simple and it depicts a very black and white morality: What is Christian is right and what is pagan/Islamic is not. There aren't too many complex characters in the story, which for epic poetry is ok. Charlemagne is the archetype for the godly, good, strong king. King Marsile, his opposite is weak, duplicitous and an archetype for a bad king. Baligant the emir, is a noble enemy worthy of Charlemagne. If Charlemagne only defeated King Marsile, the victory wouldn't have been good enough to write home about. It's like when Alabama beats Alabama A&M. It's supposed to happen. But, when Alabama beats somebody real, the two times a season they are faced with that situation, Alabama gets epics written about it that can reach an audience beyond the sycophantic south. But, I digress.
Roland is the perfect Medieval knight, brave yet pious. His death happens valiantly, but he still has time to get one last kill, pray to God for forgiveness of his sins, and die facing the country he is conquering in his death. I think the most modern character in the sense that he is the most complex is Ganelon, the traitor.
Ganelon, like Roland, has issues with pride. While Roland overcomes his pride to die a noble death, Ganelon succumbs to it and betrays his king for the sake of his own pride. He argues that his actions weren't driven treason but a personal feud with Roland. The fact that he isn't just killed upon returning to the capital, but is forced to undergo a trial by his peers that is decided in a personal combat between one of his liegeman and one that is personally loyal to Charlemagne is the scene I found the most compelling. Pinabel, the noble fighting for Ganelon is seen as good liegeman and because of it only God's intervention in the combat saves his opponent Theirry. Theirry has to win because he is the representative of the righteous Charlemagne and because treachery not only sinks the traitor, but those around him: "He who betrayeth, aye he slayeth himself and other men."
The other figure that I'm all of a sudden intrigued by is Turpin, the warrior archbishop. The Middle Ages is full of holy men doing war and I wouldn't have thought much of it until recently reading a book on Byzantine history. The idea of a warrior priest was rejected by the East. How different would have history been if the whole of the old Roman Empire had embraced the marriage between warriors and priests? How different would it have been if the West had shared the East's natural abhorrence to the concept of a priest carrying a sword? It's interesting how a story can change each time your read it.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
John the Scot
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VIII John the Scot
John the Scot or Johannes Scotus or Johannes Scotus Erigena was an Irishman, a Neoplatonist, a Greek scholar, a Pelagian and a pantheist. He is out of place in the 9th century and would have fit better in the 5th or 15th century.
"He set reason above faith, and cared nothing for the authority of ecclesiastics; yet his arbitrament was invoked to settle their controversies" (Russell, 400).
The Irish seem to have carried some Latin classics, knowledge of Greek and other knowledge throughout the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries when it was disappearing from the Continent.
Irish learning being monastic and not ecclesiastical shaped the Irish thought. There was less effort in administration and high theology than on the Continent.
Being isolated from the Pope both by distance and by not recognizing the pope's growing power, things lingered on in Ireland that disappeared elsewhere. The continuing presence of Pelagianism is borne out in some of John the Scot's ideas.
John went to France on the invitation by Charles the Bald around 843.
He kicked off a firestorm by placing the authority of philosophy on equal terms (or even higher than) with revelation. "He contended that reason and revelation are both sources of truth, and therefore cannot conflict; but if they ever seem to conflict, reason is to be preferred. True religion, he said, is true philosophy; but, conversely, true philosophy is true religion" (Russell, 403).
John the Scot also translated the PseudoDionysius, a work that reconciled Christianity with Neoplatonism. While Pope Nicholas was not pleased that John had undertaken the work without his permission and blessing, he could not fault the translation from Greek to Latin.
John divides nature into four classes:
1) what creates and is not created
2) what creates and is created
3) what is created but does not create
4) what neither creates nor is created
For John the first was God, the second were the Platonic forms, the third was things in space and time. "The fourth, surprisingly, is again God, not as Creator, but as the End and Purpose of all things. Everything that emanates from God strives to return to Him; thus the end of all such things is the same as their beginning." (Russell, 404).
Sin was for John, the loss of the divine pattern.
The total of the Platonic Ideas is the Logos.
When God created things out of nothing, that nothing is understood by John to be himself. (Pantheism)
Creation is an eternal process in John. Created things are not distinct from God in John. "The creature subsists in God, and God manifests Himself in the creature in an ineffable manner" (Russell, 405).
"Sin has its source in freedom: it arose because man turned towards himself instead of towards
God. Evil does not have its ground in God, for in God there is no idea of evil. Evil is not-being
and has no ground, for if it had a ground it would be necessary. Evil is a privation of good." (Russell, 405).
"His independence of mind is shown by these heresies, and is astonishing in the ninth century. His Neoplatonic outlook may perhaps have been common in Ireland, as it was among the Greek Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It may be that, if we knew more about Irish Christianity from the fifth to the ninth century, we should find him less surprising. On the other hand, it may be that most of what is heretical in him is to be attributed to the influence of the pseudo-Dionysius, who, because of his supposed connection with Saint Paul, was mistakenly believed to be orthodox." (Russell, 406).
Sin was a consequence of a misdirected will, falsely assuming something is good that is not. It is punished, but like Origen, John holds a universal salvation platform.
Sin was problematic for John because of his pantheism. He also had some strange heretical views on women and viewed creation and the Fall as allegory and not literal.
John had a major impact on Medieval thought by translating the Pseudo-Dionysius but his great work, On the Division of Nature was constantly being condemned as heretical. In 1225 Pope Honorius III ordered all copies to be burnt, but many survived.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VIII John the Scot
John the Scot or Johannes Scotus or Johannes Scotus Erigena was an Irishman, a Neoplatonist, a Greek scholar, a Pelagian and a pantheist. He is out of place in the 9th century and would have fit better in the 5th or 15th century.
"He set reason above faith, and cared nothing for the authority of ecclesiastics; yet his arbitrament was invoked to settle their controversies" (Russell, 400).
The Irish seem to have carried some Latin classics, knowledge of Greek and other knowledge throughout the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries when it was disappearing from the Continent.
Irish learning being monastic and not ecclesiastical shaped the Irish thought. There was less effort in administration and high theology than on the Continent.
Being isolated from the Pope both by distance and by not recognizing the pope's growing power, things lingered on in Ireland that disappeared elsewhere. The continuing presence of Pelagianism is borne out in some of John the Scot's ideas.
John went to France on the invitation by Charles the Bald around 843.
He kicked off a firestorm by placing the authority of philosophy on equal terms (or even higher than) with revelation. "He contended that reason and revelation are both sources of truth, and therefore cannot conflict; but if they ever seem to conflict, reason is to be preferred. True religion, he said, is true philosophy; but, conversely, true philosophy is true religion" (Russell, 403).
John the Scot also translated the PseudoDionysius, a work that reconciled Christianity with Neoplatonism. While Pope Nicholas was not pleased that John had undertaken the work without his permission and blessing, he could not fault the translation from Greek to Latin.
John divides nature into four classes:
1) what creates and is not created
2) what creates and is created
3) what is created but does not create
4) what neither creates nor is created
For John the first was God, the second were the Platonic forms, the third was things in space and time. "The fourth, surprisingly, is again God, not as Creator, but as the End and Purpose of all things. Everything that emanates from God strives to return to Him; thus the end of all such things is the same as their beginning." (Russell, 404).
Sin was for John, the loss of the divine pattern.
The total of the Platonic Ideas is the Logos.
When God created things out of nothing, that nothing is understood by John to be himself. (Pantheism)
Creation is an eternal process in John. Created things are not distinct from God in John. "The creature subsists in God, and God manifests Himself in the creature in an ineffable manner" (Russell, 405).
"Sin has its source in freedom: it arose because man turned towards himself instead of towards
God. Evil does not have its ground in God, for in God there is no idea of evil. Evil is not-being
and has no ground, for if it had a ground it would be necessary. Evil is a privation of good." (Russell, 405).
"His independence of mind is shown by these heresies, and is astonishing in the ninth century. His Neoplatonic outlook may perhaps have been common in Ireland, as it was among the Greek Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It may be that, if we knew more about Irish Christianity from the fifth to the ninth century, we should find him less surprising. On the other hand, it may be that most of what is heretical in him is to be attributed to the influence of the pseudo-Dionysius, who, because of his supposed connection with Saint Paul, was mistakenly believed to be orthodox." (Russell, 406).
Sin was a consequence of a misdirected will, falsely assuming something is good that is not. It is punished, but like Origen, John holds a universal salvation platform.
Sin was problematic for John because of his pantheism. He also had some strange heretical views on women and viewed creation and the Fall as allegory and not literal.
John had a major impact on Medieval thought by translating the Pseudo-Dionysius but his great work, On the Division of Nature was constantly being condemned as heretical. In 1225 Pope Honorius III ordered all copies to be burnt, but many survived.
The Papacy in the Dark Ages
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VII The Papacy in the Dark Ages
What the popes from 600 to 1000 did are vital to understanding the relation of Church and State during the Medieval period.
The western part of the church deferred to the Pope. The patriarchs in the east however were not willing to put up with papal authority. The emperor would sometimes favor the pope when he got into a tight spot with the patriarch, but the patriarchs generally acquiesced to the authority of the emperor.
The Pope's ties to Byzantine Emperors was severed when Pope Stephen III, in 754, made a deal with Pepin to replace the Merovingian king in France. Pepin got control of the French crown and the Pope got political power over much of what used to be Byzantine Italy.
The Papal break with the Byzantine Emperor allowed for the west and the east Church to develop completely differently. In the West the Pope became the ultimate authority, even higher than secular kings. In the East, the Emperor remained the ultimate seat of power.
The basis of secular power the Medieval Popes built on was a forgery called the "Donation of Constantine". It stated that when Constantine built New Rome, power over old Rome and Italy was transferred to the Pope.
The defeat of the Lombards was slow and took the emergence of Charlemagne to complete. In AD 800 on Christmas day, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
The relationship between pope and holy roman emperor was a rocky one that couldn't be avoided because the two were mutually dependent. The popes needed the military muscle of the would be emperor and the would be emperor required the pope to crown him. This made for an uneasy relationship.
"Charlemagne was a vigorous barbarian, politically in alliance with the Church, but not unduly
burdened with personal piety. He could not read or write, but he inaugurated a literary
renaissance. He was dissolute in his life, and unduly fond of his daughters, but he did all in his
power to promote holy living among his subjects." (Russell, 393).
Only the theories inaugurated during the reign of Charlemagne survived him. His line turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger.
Germany was converted mainly under St. Boniface (680 - 754). It is owing to his missionary work in Germany that the converts were papal supporters. Had they been more aligned to the Irish it would have been very different as the Irish had some autonomy from Rome.
The collapse of the Carolingian power after Charlemagne was seen as an opportunity for the papacy and the popes took more power. Pope Nicholas I (858 - 867) took the power of the pope to new heights as he battled with virtually everyone and was victorious.
The church had power over the kings because they controlled who could get married and how a marriage could be dissolved. Without the church's backing succession crisis and dynastic struggles were sure to follow.
Nicholas I even did battle with the Emperor Michael III over the deposing of Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas was victorious as Ignatius was restored after the emperor was murdered. But, in the long run when Ignatius passed away the schism between East and West grew broader.
The papacy was dominated by the Roman aristocracy in the 10th century leading to bad and morally corrupt popes. Their corruption saw them lose all power in the east and they struggled to maintain control over the bishops north of the Alps.
As 1000 dawned the lowest point of European Christendom seems to have passed. The Church would continue to struggle with rulers and priests who were worldly, but reform movements, often beginning in monastic circles would occasionally correct the Church's direction.
After 1000 the migrations of barbarians also seemed to stop for a bit in the west. Especially important was the Norman conquest of Sicily away from the Saracens and the Norman conquest of England away from the Danes.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VII The Papacy in the Dark Ages
What the popes from 600 to 1000 did are vital to understanding the relation of Church and State during the Medieval period.
The western part of the church deferred to the Pope. The patriarchs in the east however were not willing to put up with papal authority. The emperor would sometimes favor the pope when he got into a tight spot with the patriarch, but the patriarchs generally acquiesced to the authority of the emperor.
The Pope's ties to Byzantine Emperors was severed when Pope Stephen III, in 754, made a deal with Pepin to replace the Merovingian king in France. Pepin got control of the French crown and the Pope got political power over much of what used to be Byzantine Italy.
The Papal break with the Byzantine Emperor allowed for the west and the east Church to develop completely differently. In the West the Pope became the ultimate authority, even higher than secular kings. In the East, the Emperor remained the ultimate seat of power.
The basis of secular power the Medieval Popes built on was a forgery called the "Donation of Constantine". It stated that when Constantine built New Rome, power over old Rome and Italy was transferred to the Pope.
The defeat of the Lombards was slow and took the emergence of Charlemagne to complete. In AD 800 on Christmas day, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
The relationship between pope and holy roman emperor was a rocky one that couldn't be avoided because the two were mutually dependent. The popes needed the military muscle of the would be emperor and the would be emperor required the pope to crown him. This made for an uneasy relationship.
"Charlemagne was a vigorous barbarian, politically in alliance with the Church, but not unduly
burdened with personal piety. He could not read or write, but he inaugurated a literary
renaissance. He was dissolute in his life, and unduly fond of his daughters, but he did all in his
power to promote holy living among his subjects." (Russell, 393).
Only the theories inaugurated during the reign of Charlemagne survived him. His line turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger.
Germany was converted mainly under St. Boniface (680 - 754). It is owing to his missionary work in Germany that the converts were papal supporters. Had they been more aligned to the Irish it would have been very different as the Irish had some autonomy from Rome.
The collapse of the Carolingian power after Charlemagne was seen as an opportunity for the papacy and the popes took more power. Pope Nicholas I (858 - 867) took the power of the pope to new heights as he battled with virtually everyone and was victorious.
The church had power over the kings because they controlled who could get married and how a marriage could be dissolved. Without the church's backing succession crisis and dynastic struggles were sure to follow.
Nicholas I even did battle with the Emperor Michael III over the deposing of Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas was victorious as Ignatius was restored after the emperor was murdered. But, in the long run when Ignatius passed away the schism between East and West grew broader.
The papacy was dominated by the Roman aristocracy in the 10th century leading to bad and morally corrupt popes. Their corruption saw them lose all power in the east and they struggled to maintain control over the bishops north of the Alps.
As 1000 dawned the lowest point of European Christendom seems to have passed. The Church would continue to struggle with rulers and priests who were worldly, but reform movements, often beginning in monastic circles would occasionally correct the Church's direction.
After 1000 the migrations of barbarians also seemed to stop for a bit in the west. Especially important was the Norman conquest of Sicily away from the Saracens and the Norman conquest of England away from the Danes.
Saint Benedict & Gregory the Great
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VI Saint Benedict and Gregory the Great
In the chaos of the wars in the sixth and succeeding centuries it was the Church that preserved what was left of the Roman culture.
Monasticism began in Egypt and Syria in the fourth centuries. St. Anthony, the first of the hermits was born in Egypt in 250 AD. His rigorous asceticism was popular and attracted many copycats.
Monasticism sprang up in Syria around the same time and the Greek speaking world saw monastic organizations flourish because of St. Basil (circa 360 AD).
Monasticism began outside of the Church hierarchy and the work of St. Athanasius was what reconciled the clergy to the monks. St. Jerome promoted the movement and St. Augustine introduced it to Africa. St Martin of Tours set it up in Gaul and St. Patrick set everything up in Ireland. St. Columba founded the monastery of Iona in 566.
"There seem to have been nuns before there were monks - as early as the middle of the third century. Some shut themselves up in tombs" (Russell, 377).
The Western tradition of monasticism owes much to St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictine Order. In 520 AD he founded the monastery at Monte Cassino. Benedict brought order to the ascetic way of life.
Benedict died in 543 and his monastery was sacked by the Lombards, but afterwards the monks returned and Monte Cassino became a place of scholarship that greatly aided the West in later years.
Benedict has been described as a miracle worker and that he wounded his body so he could cure the wounds of his soul.
"His fame being spread abroad, the monks of a certain monastery, whose abbot had lately died,
besought him to accept the succession. He did so, and insisted upon observance of strict virtue, so
that the monks, in a rage, decided to poison him with a glass of poisoned wine. He, however,
made the sign of the cross over the glass, whereupon it broke in pieces. So he returned to the
wilderness" (Russell, 379).
Benedict also faced an assassination attempt from a wicked priest. When the poisoned loaf he sent to Benedict was taken away by a crow at Benedict's command the priest sent seven naked women to tempt Benedict. For fear of the temptation being too much for the younger monks Benedict left the monastery. When news that the wicked priest had died a jubilant young monk went and told Benedict the news and said it was safe to come back. Benedict went back but mourned for the dead priest and imposed a penance on the monk who had gleefully related the news.
Gregory the Great, the powerful pope was born in Rome around 540 to a rich, noble family. After a bright start to a political career Gregory turned himself over to God and became a Benedictine monk.
"Gregory, owing partly to his personal qualities and partly to the prevailing anarchy, was able to assert successfully an authority which was admitted by ecclesiastics throughout the West, and even, to a lesser degree, in the East. He exerted this authority chiefly by means of letters to bishops and secular rulers in all parts of the Roman world" (Russell, 382).
Gregory also wrote Book of Pastoral Rule that gave practical advice to Bishops and elevated the papacy to authority and the church in authority over the state.
Gregory was hostile to secular learning and the Church retained that hostility until the 11th century under Pope Sylvester II.
Gregory wrote many letters that show him stern with both secular authorities and other bishops. However, he was much more deferential when dealing with the Emperor, even in dealing with Phocas who murdered his way to power in a brutal way.
Missionary work was crucial at the time of Gregory and much of the barbarian population of the West either converted from paganism or from Arian Christianity during the time. Gregory was particularly concerned with re-Christianizing England that had been nominally Christian under the empire but was lately overrun by pagan Angles and Saxons.
"The period we have been considering is peculiar in the fact that, though its great men are inferior
to those of many other epochs, their influence on future ages has been greater. Roman law,
monasticism, and the papacy owe their long and profound influence very largely to Justinian,
Benedict, and Gregory. The men of the sixth century, though less civilized than their predecessors,
were much more civilized than the men of the next four centuries, and they succeeded in framing
institutions that ultimately tamed the barbarians. It is noteworthy that, of the above three men, two
were aristocratic natives of Rome, and the third was Roman Emperor. Gregory is in a very real
sense the last of the Romans. His tone of command, while justified by his office, has its instinctive
basis in Roman aristocratic pride. After him, for many ages, the city of Rome ceased to produce
great men. But in its downfall it succeeded in fettering the souls of its conquerors: the reverence
which they felt for the Chair of Peter was an outcome of the awe which they felt for the throne of
the Caesars.
In the East, the course of history was different. Mahomet was born when Gregory was about thirty
years old." (Russell, 387).
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VI Saint Benedict and Gregory the Great
In the chaos of the wars in the sixth and succeeding centuries it was the Church that preserved what was left of the Roman culture.
Monasticism began in Egypt and Syria in the fourth centuries. St. Anthony, the first of the hermits was born in Egypt in 250 AD. His rigorous asceticism was popular and attracted many copycats.
Monasticism sprang up in Syria around the same time and the Greek speaking world saw monastic organizations flourish because of St. Basil (circa 360 AD).
Monasticism began outside of the Church hierarchy and the work of St. Athanasius was what reconciled the clergy to the monks. St. Jerome promoted the movement and St. Augustine introduced it to Africa. St Martin of Tours set it up in Gaul and St. Patrick set everything up in Ireland. St. Columba founded the monastery of Iona in 566.
"There seem to have been nuns before there were monks - as early as the middle of the third century. Some shut themselves up in tombs" (Russell, 377).
The Western tradition of monasticism owes much to St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictine Order. In 520 AD he founded the monastery at Monte Cassino. Benedict brought order to the ascetic way of life.
Benedict died in 543 and his monastery was sacked by the Lombards, but afterwards the monks returned and Monte Cassino became a place of scholarship that greatly aided the West in later years.
Benedict has been described as a miracle worker and that he wounded his body so he could cure the wounds of his soul.
"His fame being spread abroad, the monks of a certain monastery, whose abbot had lately died,
besought him to accept the succession. He did so, and insisted upon observance of strict virtue, so
that the monks, in a rage, decided to poison him with a glass of poisoned wine. He, however,
made the sign of the cross over the glass, whereupon it broke in pieces. So he returned to the
wilderness" (Russell, 379).
Benedict also faced an assassination attempt from a wicked priest. When the poisoned loaf he sent to Benedict was taken away by a crow at Benedict's command the priest sent seven naked women to tempt Benedict. For fear of the temptation being too much for the younger monks Benedict left the monastery. When news that the wicked priest had died a jubilant young monk went and told Benedict the news and said it was safe to come back. Benedict went back but mourned for the dead priest and imposed a penance on the monk who had gleefully related the news.
Gregory the Great, the powerful pope was born in Rome around 540 to a rich, noble family. After a bright start to a political career Gregory turned himself over to God and became a Benedictine monk.
"Gregory, owing partly to his personal qualities and partly to the prevailing anarchy, was able to assert successfully an authority which was admitted by ecclesiastics throughout the West, and even, to a lesser degree, in the East. He exerted this authority chiefly by means of letters to bishops and secular rulers in all parts of the Roman world" (Russell, 382).
Gregory also wrote Book of Pastoral Rule that gave practical advice to Bishops and elevated the papacy to authority and the church in authority over the state.
Gregory was hostile to secular learning and the Church retained that hostility until the 11th century under Pope Sylvester II.
Gregory wrote many letters that show him stern with both secular authorities and other bishops. However, he was much more deferential when dealing with the Emperor, even in dealing with Phocas who murdered his way to power in a brutal way.
Missionary work was crucial at the time of Gregory and much of the barbarian population of the West either converted from paganism or from Arian Christianity during the time. Gregory was particularly concerned with re-Christianizing England that had been nominally Christian under the empire but was lately overrun by pagan Angles and Saxons.
"The period we have been considering is peculiar in the fact that, though its great men are inferior
to those of many other epochs, their influence on future ages has been greater. Roman law,
monasticism, and the papacy owe their long and profound influence very largely to Justinian,
Benedict, and Gregory. The men of the sixth century, though less civilized than their predecessors,
were much more civilized than the men of the next four centuries, and they succeeded in framing
institutions that ultimately tamed the barbarians. It is noteworthy that, of the above three men, two
were aristocratic natives of Rome, and the third was Roman Emperor. Gregory is in a very real
sense the last of the Romans. His tone of command, while justified by his office, has its instinctive
basis in Roman aristocratic pride. After him, for many ages, the city of Rome ceased to produce
great men. But in its downfall it succeeded in fettering the souls of its conquerors: the reverence
which they felt for the Chair of Peter was an outcome of the awe which they felt for the throne of
the Caesars.
In the East, the course of history was different. Mahomet was born when Gregory was about thirty
years old." (Russell, 387).
Woman at Point Zero
From Goodreads
I can't say that I enjoyed this book more than The Circling Song because there isn't much to enjoy about this book. It's not bad in the sense that it is poorly written. In fact there are passages that are exceptionally well written.
"Now I had learnt that honour required large sums of money to protect it, but that large sums of money could not be obtained without losing one's honour"
"I am speaking the truth. And truth is savage and dangerous".
"I only arrived at the savage, primitive truths of life after years of struggle. For it is only very rarely that people can arrive at the simple, but awesome and powerful truths of life after one no longer fears death. For death and truth are similar in that they both require a great courage if one wishes to face them".
It's beautiful writing, and like The Circling Song the story echoes itself and with each echo one sees more of the savage truth being unveiled. Having read the other book I was more prepared for thsi one, but it's still not a fun read. It reminds me a bit of the movie Dogville, especially with all the rape and the power structures between men and women ending in a reversal by the end. Like Dogville too, it's a good piece of work that I don't see me picking up again any time in the near future.
In some ways Firdaus is a bit of a stoic saint, suffering, but rising above the suffering. Her outlook on life as suffering and suffering as the path to truth have the feel of Stoicism about it. However, she has to have a final, explosive act of passion to move from the dissociative state to the state of enlightenment that doesn't quite fit the mold. But then again, Marcus Aurelius killed more than a single pimp. Firdaus is a character that is hard to empathize with, but she was made so by the male dominated society that was both the setting and the impetus for her abuse. I don't want to make light of anybody's suffering, but this book details a much more graphic and horrific situation than what more contemporary and Western feminist writers are having to deal with at the moment. It's probably wrong of me to look at the world with a sliding scale approach to oppression, but it's hard not to read something like this book and compare it to the railings against mansplaining or the fight over whether women athletes should be paid as much as their male counterparts. I'm sure some of this comes from a bit of a chauvinist way of thinking; but, it feels as though it is rooted in reality and common sense.
A comparison between this and Aristophane's Lysistrata would be an interesting endeavor.
I can't say that I enjoyed this book more than The Circling Song because there isn't much to enjoy about this book. It's not bad in the sense that it is poorly written. In fact there are passages that are exceptionally well written.
"Now I had learnt that honour required large sums of money to protect it, but that large sums of money could not be obtained without losing one's honour"
"I am speaking the truth. And truth is savage and dangerous".
"I only arrived at the savage, primitive truths of life after years of struggle. For it is only very rarely that people can arrive at the simple, but awesome and powerful truths of life after one no longer fears death. For death and truth are similar in that they both require a great courage if one wishes to face them".
It's beautiful writing, and like The Circling Song the story echoes itself and with each echo one sees more of the savage truth being unveiled. Having read the other book I was more prepared for thsi one, but it's still not a fun read. It reminds me a bit of the movie Dogville, especially with all the rape and the power structures between men and women ending in a reversal by the end. Like Dogville too, it's a good piece of work that I don't see me picking up again any time in the near future.
In some ways Firdaus is a bit of a stoic saint, suffering, but rising above the suffering. Her outlook on life as suffering and suffering as the path to truth have the feel of Stoicism about it. However, she has to have a final, explosive act of passion to move from the dissociative state to the state of enlightenment that doesn't quite fit the mold. But then again, Marcus Aurelius killed more than a single pimp. Firdaus is a character that is hard to empathize with, but she was made so by the male dominated society that was both the setting and the impetus for her abuse. I don't want to make light of anybody's suffering, but this book details a much more graphic and horrific situation than what more contemporary and Western feminist writers are having to deal with at the moment. It's probably wrong of me to look at the world with a sliding scale approach to oppression, but it's hard not to read something like this book and compare it to the railings against mansplaining or the fight over whether women athletes should be paid as much as their male counterparts. I'm sure some of this comes from a bit of a chauvinist way of thinking; but, it feels as though it is rooted in reality and common sense.
A comparison between this and Aristophane's Lysistrata would be an interesting endeavor.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The Fifth and Sixth Centuries
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter V: The Fifth and Sixth Centuries
The fifth century saw the break up of the Empire and centralized authority was preserved only in the Church and that was accomplished with much effort.
The Goths took over Italy, the Vandals took Africa, the Visigoths took over in the South of France and the Franks took over France and Germany.
There was also the horror of Atilla and his Hunnic rabble from the east.
The theological hairsplitting of Cyril and Nestorius over a Christological matter erupted into violence. Nestorius claimed that there were two persons in Christ, one human and one divine. Nestorius was condemned as a heretic in a sham of an ecumenical council. Nestorius however did not recant and Nestorian Christianity was popular in Syria and even traveled to China and India where it was rediscovered centuries later by western missionaries.
After the Nestorian heresy came the opposite, the Monophysite heresy, that claimed Christ had only one nature. At the end of two ecumenical councils, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon Christianity declared that there is only one person of Christ but that he exists in two natures, one human and one divine.
The heresies of Nestorius and Monophysitism weakened the bonds of Christianity and facilitated the Arab conquest. "The heresy of the Abyssinians was given by Mussolini as one of his reasons for conquering them" (Russell, 369).
During the 6th century four men emerged as important: Boethius, Justinian, Benedict and Gregory the Great.
Boethius, author of Consolations of Philosophy was put to death by the Arian ruler of Italy, Theodoric when Justin the Eastern emperor proscribed Arianism.
"Boethius is a singular figure. Throughout the Middle Ages he was read and admired, regarded
always as a devout Christian, and treated almost as if he had been one of the Fathers. Yet his
Consolations of Philosophy, written in 524 while he was awaiting execution, is purely Platonic; it
does not prove that he was not a Christian, but it does show that pagan philosophy had a much
stronger hold on him then Christian theology. Some theological works, especially one on the
Trinity, which are attributed to him, are by many authorities considered to be spurious; but it was
probably owing to them that the Middle Ages were able to regard him as orthodox, and to imbibe
from him much Platonism which would otherwise have been viewed with suspicion." (Russell, 370).
A lot of the morality of Boethius is Stoic in nature. He takes on the privation theory of evil.
He claimed that men become happy by becoming a god. There is only one God, but there are many by participation in God.
Only the virtuous obtain the good.
Given that the book was written in prison under the sentence of death the work is as admirable as the last moment of Platonic Socrates.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter V: The Fifth and Sixth Centuries
The fifth century saw the break up of the Empire and centralized authority was preserved only in the Church and that was accomplished with much effort.
The Goths took over Italy, the Vandals took Africa, the Visigoths took over in the South of France and the Franks took over France and Germany.
There was also the horror of Atilla and his Hunnic rabble from the east.
The theological hairsplitting of Cyril and Nestorius over a Christological matter erupted into violence. Nestorius claimed that there were two persons in Christ, one human and one divine. Nestorius was condemned as a heretic in a sham of an ecumenical council. Nestorius however did not recant and Nestorian Christianity was popular in Syria and even traveled to China and India where it was rediscovered centuries later by western missionaries.
After the Nestorian heresy came the opposite, the Monophysite heresy, that claimed Christ had only one nature. At the end of two ecumenical councils, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon Christianity declared that there is only one person of Christ but that he exists in two natures, one human and one divine.
The heresies of Nestorius and Monophysitism weakened the bonds of Christianity and facilitated the Arab conquest. "The heresy of the Abyssinians was given by Mussolini as one of his reasons for conquering them" (Russell, 369).
During the 6th century four men emerged as important: Boethius, Justinian, Benedict and Gregory the Great.
Boethius, author of Consolations of Philosophy was put to death by the Arian ruler of Italy, Theodoric when Justin the Eastern emperor proscribed Arianism.
"Boethius is a singular figure. Throughout the Middle Ages he was read and admired, regarded
always as a devout Christian, and treated almost as if he had been one of the Fathers. Yet his
Consolations of Philosophy, written in 524 while he was awaiting execution, is purely Platonic; it
does not prove that he was not a Christian, but it does show that pagan philosophy had a much
stronger hold on him then Christian theology. Some theological works, especially one on the
Trinity, which are attributed to him, are by many authorities considered to be spurious; but it was
probably owing to them that the Middle Ages were able to regard him as orthodox, and to imbibe
from him much Platonism which would otherwise have been viewed with suspicion." (Russell, 370).
A lot of the morality of Boethius is Stoic in nature. He takes on the privation theory of evil.
He claimed that men become happy by becoming a god. There is only one God, but there are many by participation in God.
Only the virtuous obtain the good.
Given that the book was written in prison under the sentence of death the work is as admirable as the last moment of Platonic Socrates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)