RSS

Author Archives: Curt Emanuel

About Curt Emanuel

No formal history training. No Latin. Not a SCAdian. But I'm interested in Medieval History, particularly from the 4th through 9th centuries and I read about it - a lot. I think that makes me a geek.

Sanctuary in the Middle Ages

Most of us have either watched a movie or read a book set in the Medieval Period which includes a scene where the action runs something like this; Someone who has been accused (usually unjustly, particularly if he/she is Our Hero) is pursued by a (usually evil) group of people intent on bringing him/her to justice (we usually can hear baying hounds in the background). Our Hero, almost by accident, finds him/herself at the door of a church or chapel where, after pounding on the door until the pursuers are visible in the background (sometimes as arrows strike into the door), he/she is granted admittance. Collapsing to the floor in a paroxysm of exhaustion, Our Hero asks for, and is granted, sanctuary.

In my effort to read a bit of material outside of Early Christianity, I seem to have focused on a few books I’ve picked up about Medieval Law. Right now I’m reading Law, Sex and the Illicit in Medieval Europe and just finished an essay on sanctuary by William Chester Jordan. 1

The concept of sanctuary existed during the Middle Ages; this post is not a myth-buster. However, as with most aspects of the Middle Ages, the reality was more complicated than what most of us (myself anyway) have been exposed to through popular media.

My rather ignorant notion of sanctuary had been that any Holy Place would serve. Once the accused/pursued was granted entrance, he or she could hang out there, basically forever. He or she might be asked to work to help pay his or her way, but that sanctuary could, theoretically (if the pursuers were honorable which, of course, in these books and movies they were not) last forever. I’ll admit to being a bit fuzzy on what a “Holy Place” actually meant. Jordan’s essay provides a fair amount of additional information related to sanctuary.

The first and most significant aspect is that the concept of sanctuary in the Middle Ages was far from universal. Jordan states that it may have only officially been recognized in England and Northern France. He says that while the Iberian peninsula provides evidence indicating that it may have been in effect there, little evidence exists for it in Italy, Central Europe, or Scandinavia. (19-20) While the concept of sanctuary appears to have been around for a long time, it only became widely practiced in the 13th century, when laws recognizing and regulating sanctuary were written.

What was recognized as a place of sanctuary and who was eligible? I found the answers to these two questions the most interesting parts of the essay. Turning to location, not every church was eligible to be considered sanctuary. Fortified churches were often not considered sanctuaries, probably as they couldn’t be considered a place where blood was never spilled. Private chapels and oratories didn’t qualify; a criminal could not flee to a chapel on an estate. (20-21) A few locations were chartered as sanctuaries where an institution had been granted special privileges, however Jordan did not mention any specifics about what these privileges might be.

London_westminster_1894
1894 plan of Westminster Abbey, a chartered sanctuary.
Note the area labeled “Broad Sanctuary” in the lower left (I am clueless as to what that means).
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The number of people ineligible to seek sanctuary far outweighed the number who could. First and foremost, it was only eligible for felons; those who might receive the death penalty. 2 Heretics, serfs, Jews, and those who had been excommunicated were also ineligible. 3

Things didn’t end once sanctuary was granted. In Britain, clergy were expected to inform officials that someone had taken sanctuary. The claimant had to confess their crimes before magistrates as well as participate in the sacrament of confession within the church. The term of sanctuary was not endless. If the individual was found to be deserving of sanctuary, he or she would take an oath agreeing to leave the kingdom and would be allowed to travel to a seaport to depart; in England this was usually from Dover. (25) If they did not leave they would become outlaws and would also forfeit the right to receive sanctuary a second time.

There’s more to this but I’m not going to re-create the entire essay. One of the most interesting things to me is that this is another sign of the systematization of the legal system which took place in England during the 12th and 13th centuries. If it was a part of custom or a generally recognized practice, folks started to write down and codify things. Sanctuary evolved from something of an informal practice governed by custom, to one written into and both protected and limited by law.

1 Jordan, William Chester, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” pp. 17-32 in Karras, Ruth Mazo; Kaye, Joel and; Matter, E. Ann, eds., Law and the Illicit in Medieval Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (2008). ISBN: 978-0-8122-4080-1.

2 I think it’s important to note that in the 13th century punitive imprisonment for the most part did not exist. This meant that more crimes were punishable by death but it also meant that those denied sanctuary would not face a long stretch in jail but rather fines or some type of forced servitude.

3 I read – somewhere – that Jews might be given the choice of converting and being granted sanctuary as a newly baptized Christian rather than being handed over. It’s been a long time since I read it and I’m not going to look for it in my books. I don’t recall what time period this was for or where but the same sort of condition accompanied expulsion from kingdoms at times so this would be consistent. I suppose this isn’t technically forced conversion.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 23, 2014 in Society and Social Structure

 

Tags: ,

Why This Blog May be Quiet and Why I’ll Likely Miss Kalamazoo

I have quite a bit to post about but am having real trouble finding the time, at least to make the kind of posts I want to make. I have a fair amount to write on Origen, though this will not approach the time I spent on Tertullian. I’ve had a draft post on Irenaeus sitting around since last August and I think I may be ready to offer a few thoughts on some of the ways in which ancient philosophy impacted the evolution of Christianity.

There’s a reason for this. I was going to wait until the project was finished and then apologize after the fact but I’ve had a couple of e-mails this week asking me if I would be at Kalamazoo. I’ve been debating my attendance and finally have decided this would be foolish. The reason can be summed up by the following image.

3_7_146

Eventually things will be placed on top of what you see here – wood and shingles and bricks and wires and other stuff. The problem, related to Kalamazoo, is that the house is due to be finished in late May. That means that when Kalamazoo is going on is about the time when I’ll be talking to the builder to finalize things like fixtures in the kitchen and baths, the placement of lights and outlets throughout the house; all of the detail sort of things which I might actually have something to contribute to. If they’d be in the middle of framing or placing trusses it would be a different story but for this I need to be on site.

The problem’s not money, though a Kalamazoo book bill in the thousands probably wouldn’t be the wisest move (considering I just splurged on Oxford’s annual spring sale I wouldn’t let this stop me though) but I need to be here.

When it comes to impacting this blog, as an example, I spent most of yesterday walking through various shops looking at furniture, art, and antiques. I’m not normally an antique-er but I’d like the place to have a bit of character. On finishing this post I’m heading to Indianapolis to visit a home show (technically a flower and patio show but there are plenty of interior booths there too) to look at kitchen and bath items. I’ve sort of decided where I’m going in those areas but nothing’s final until it’s final so I’ll take my plans with me and talk to some folks.

So I apologize both for missing Kalamazoo which really disappoints me, as well as for my expectation that this blog will be relatively quiet for a while. The one consolation I have is that if this is finished by the end of May, I might be able to head to Saint Louis University for their conference in June. We’ll see. There is a possibility of a significant delay (no reason to expect it, but there is always a chance something may come up) which might change my Kalamazoo plans but this is where I’m at right now.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 9, 2014 in Not Really Medieval

 

Tags: , , ,

Embarrassing Amateur Moments Supplement

Lately life’s been getting in the way of me making substantive posts. I’d say that’s unfortunate but it’s actually good; just not for this blog.

However the other day I was driving and heard something on the radio which applies perfectly to a post I made a couple of years ago about Embarrassing Amateur Moments. In that post I mentioned that one of my problems is not knowing how to pronounce things. I read a lot but I don’t attend a lot of seminars and am not involved in regular discussions with historians. I don’t know how to pronounce a variety of things; historical figures, place-names, even names of modern historians. At one time this bothered me until I adopted a policy of figuring that most historians had better things to worry about so I wouldn’t overly concern myself with it either.

In the US (and these days I’m sure it’s available internationally) a sports network, ESPN, has a morning talk show called Mike and Mike, featuring a retired (American) football player, Mike Golich and a sportswriter, Mike Greenberg. I was listening to it the other day and heard an actor/comedian, Kevin Hart, discussing an issue he had pronouncing the word “facade.” Here’s a link to the audio. The facade conversation begins about 3:30 into it.

Let’s face it, pronouncing something like “Amalasuintha” isn’t easy. And what the heck do you do with Welsh? Seriously – Rhwng Gwy a Hafren? Gwynfardd Brycheiniog? I’m sure there are rules and once you learn them it’s simple but speaking as a layperson, I consider Welsh to be significantly lacking in vowels.

So as a supplement to that earlier post, if you ever get into a conversation with someone (doesn’t have to be a historian, any subject matter specialist will do) and find out after the fact that you butchered a pronunciation, go back and listen to this. It’ll make you feel better.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on February 23, 2014 in Amateur Tips

 

Tags: ,

Did Origen Castrate Himself?

The story that Origen, in a fit of piety, castrated himself, was well known during the Middle Ages. Carl Pyrdum on his (now defunct?) blog, Got Medieval, has a brief discussion of this which includes an image of Origen and his severed genitalia(I decided not to include an image here).

This account comes to us from Eusebius. In his Ecclesiastical History, VI.8 he relates how Origen decided to, er, separate himself from his sexual bits because he either misread scripture or because he was teaching female catechumens and wanted to either be free from temptation or let everyone know that it was impossible for any hanky-panky to be going on, or maybe a combination of the two. 1

So as sort of a warmup to discussing Origen’s theology I thought it would be interesting to explore this question; Did Origen castrate himself?

A fair amount of this will involve a discussion of Origen’s life so I guess I might as well include relevant parts of his biography. Origen was the son of a prominent Christian who was martyred around the start of the third century. His career began in Alexandria where he quickly became a favorite of the Bishop, Demetrius. As an educated layperson, Origen was qualified to give instruction to catechumens which he did, as well as write. At some point Origen’s teaching turned into actual preaching (I’m a bit fuzzy on the distinction myself) which Demetrius opposed.

As a result, around 230 Origen was driven out of Alexandria and moved to Caesarea. There he was ordained as a priest, which Demetrius opposed and wrote against, and stayed there for the rest of his life, preaching and writing.

In looking at Origen’s self-distesticulation, which was certainly a no-no for Christians, especially for priests who were expected to be free of blemishes, the discussion has to center upon the possibility that this was an invention of his critics, particularly Demetrius. Eusebius specifically attributes the story getting out to the Alexandrian Bishop who, as he was nearing death, seems to have developed a hatred of Origen.

So was this story invented? It’s a plausible theory. Religious conflict could be messy and Alexandria would later develop a reputation as a place where things could get particularly dirty. Someone could have spread this story around, once Origen was in Caesarea and not on hand to be examined, or engage in public flashing, to dispute it. The story would have had an added benefit of keeping Origen away because even if the story wasn’t true, it would be a pretty good indication of what he’d face if he returned.

To me the above is a wash. Demetrius could have made this up but we have no evidence of this other than the fact that Origen had enemies(this could have been invented by someone else and then used by Demetrius). So how do we resolve this?

Well, first of all, we don’t. There’s no “the answer” unless someone finds where Origen was buried, can definitively prove it was him, and finds testicles(and I suppose to really remove doubt DNA would have to show that the testicles belonged to the rest of the body). However I want to explain why I consider Origen’s self-castration to be unlikely. I’m going to do this by examining two areas; his role within the Church and his writings.

OK, Origen was a teacher in the Church, educating catechumens at the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which he revived while a young man. This school was operated as a philosophical branch. One of the traditions of philosophy was that teachers should inspire students to want to emulate them. Would castrating oneself be something students would find desirable? Would this help attract students?

At that time a catechumen was a person who was interested in Christianity and was engaged in learning enough about it to make an informed decision before being baptized which would (at least in theory) result in a radical change in the catechumen’s lifestyle. Again, would the fact that one of the teachers and the head of the school had castrated himself out of religious piety encourage people to convert? I know I recently cautioned everyone not to make assumptions about folks from historical periods thinking like us but I’m going to take a leap here and say that having a teacher who cut his own junk off for religious reasons would not be a strong selling point when trying to attract new Christians.

So this is the first reason I consider this unlikely. A prominent teacher at a school designed to educate people about Christianity and convince them to convert would likely not have been someone who had engaged in self-mutilation. I don’t care if he was educating girls, boys, or snow leopards. I think it unlikely, though we have to give at least some credibility to the idea that he had done so, regretted it, and managed to conceal it.

However the real reason why I have serious questions about this is because of Origen’s writings. Eusebius relates that in addition to avoiding suspicion while teaching girls, Origen castrated himself because he misunderstood Matthew 19:12 where Jesus advocates people becoming Eunuchs for the Church.

The problem is, Origen constantly cautions people not to read scriptures literally. He states, many times, that the Bible (he’s also the first person I recall to say the Bible should be considered a single book, not a collection) includes figurative and spiritual, as well as literal, meanings. Now Eusebius says Origen did this while very young, however he also says one reason was to help him teach girls. Clearly we’re not talking about Origen the teenager. We’re likely discussing him while in his 20′s. Unless his thinking was very different from when he wrote On First Principles beginning from when he was about 30, he would have known not to take scripture literally. 2

Of course a counter to this is that cutting one’s own testicles off, then finding out this isn’t what the Bible meant, might cause someone to radically alter his opinion of how scripture should be read. I’d say that would rank pretty high on any list of OSM’s. 3

So I want to offer a specific quote which I consider the key piece of evidence, for my opinion anyway. In On Prayer, XX.1, Origen writes:

Let us suppose there is a difference between church and synagogue. In its proper sense the church has no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but is holy and blameless. Into it enters no bastard or eunuch or one castrated …

On prayer was written after Origen had moved to Caesarea. Unlike much of his material, the entire work survives in Greek, meaning it was not changed by Rufinus. Would Origen, by this time certainly aware of Demetrius’ accusation, have written about this and drawn attention to it if he himself had violated this prohibition on castrated people entering the Church?

Ultimately, there’s no way to know for sure if Origen castrated himself. However the above passage is the deal breaker for me. I think it unlikely.

In the end, is this important? Not terribly but a little. When folks talk about historical religious fanaticism, Origen’s self-mutilation comes up and makes a rather impressive factoid. The Church had its fanatics (or folks we’d consider fanatics today, back then those people were often considered to be doing their job). People left behind everything they had to live their life on top of a pole or in a cave. They engaged in self-flagellation and deliberately inflicted pain upon themselves in the name of religion. However after thinking this over, considering what he wrote, specifically the passage from On Prayer, I think Origen’s castration should not be included in this list of fanatical acts.

1 When you read Eusebius’ account, it comes across as contradictory. Eusebius says he did it partly to be free from slander and then says he couldn’t hide it, however hard he tried. If the reason for becoming a Eunuch was to avoid slander, wouldn’t you have to let folks know about it?

2 On First Principles(de principiis) IV.9. I’ll be talking about this in more detail when I discuss Origen’s theology. As evidence that this was Origen’s thought, not something added by Rufinus, this passage is one of those which Jerome did his own translation of. The idea is also included in the Philocalia, provided by Gregory Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea, in Greek. This, along with considering how many times he returns to this theme, is very strong evidence that the concept is Origen’s own.

3 OSM stands for “Oh Shit Moment.” I try to avoid profanity here but occasionally its use does legitimately advance an argument.

Eusebius of Caesarea, C.F. Cruze, trans., Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (1998). ISBN: 978-1-56563-371-7.

Origen, George Lewis, trans., The Philocalia of Origen: A Compilation of Selected Passages from Origen’s Works Made by St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil of Caesarea. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark (1911).

Origen, Rowan A. Greer, trans., Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, First Principles: Book IV, Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs, Homily XXVII on Numbers. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press (1979). ISBN: 978-0-809102198-4.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Part Fourth: Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-086-6.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 9, 2014 in Religion

 

Tags: , , , ,

What do I do With Origen?

This is not the first time this question has been asked. Heck, the Church asked it for a couple of centuries before Justinian had him condemned in 553 at the Council of Constantinople. My perspective’s a bit different.

If you’ve been following my reading/blogging on Early Christianity posts you know that at the moment I’m reading forward from first century Christian origins (though many will say the date of the true origin is the same as for Judaism). I’m planning to do this fairly intensely until I get to Nicaea. My post-Nicaean level of knowledge is quite a bit higher so from that point I’ll be in more of a gap filling mode rather than this wholesale gobbling up of everything.

So here we have Origen. He’s prominent. He wrote from the early to the mid-3rd Century. He started his career in Alexandria and ended it in Caesarea. I should be able to go through his stuff and use him as another example of what Christians were thinking during that period, right?

Not so fast. Most of Origen’s writings come to us through early 5th century Latin translations by Rufinus of Aquileia. Rufinus has been roundly criticized by various folks, as early as his contemporary, Jerome, for mistranslation to the point of making wholesale changes to Origen’s text and completely altering his meaning.

To provide a little background, Rufinus’ Orthodoxy came into question in the late 4th century. One of the criticisms leveled against him was that he had not been a strong enough critic of Origen. There was this whole conflict between Jerome and Rufinus which I’ll need to read more on to fully discuss. I have read Claudian and he hates Rufinus passionately, though this has much more to do with Claudian being Stilicho’s panegyrist and the conflict between East and West/Arcadian and Honorius than religious reasons. 1 In any case, with his Orthodoxy still an open question, Rufinus was accused of amending Origen’s text. Jerome had access to the Greek and provided some translations of his own demonstrating these changes(these amounted to a small fraction of Rufinus’ translations).

There’s a LOT more to this but the essence is I don’t know what to do with Origen. I don’t think I can use him as an example of 3rd century Christian thought, not reliably, as what we have from him isn’t (probably) completely his own words and ideas. At the same time, Rufinus didn’t totally rewrite him so we can’t use him as an example of early 5th-century thought either.

What can be done, since Rufinus’ translation is what was handed down to posterity, is talk about Origen’s influence on Early Christianity or, more correctly, the influence of Origen-Rufinus. I can touch on this a little but as I haven’t completely gone through Jerome and Augustine (and other writings of Rufinus) I can’t assess this all that well either. In the end, I’ll probably limit myself to a single topical post on Origen’s writings, then hope to link back to them once I begin reading up on the late 4th/early 5th centuries. I’ll mention prominent concepts and areas were he got himself into trouble but the caution has to be made that it may not be that he got himself into trouble but that Rufinus got him in trouble (150 years after he died).

One area this highlights is the importance of critically analyzing sources. I think, though I have questions about my qualifications to do so, that I’ll probably put together a post on the use of sources. And for Origen, I’m going to focus less on specific ideas, as I did with Tertullian, and spend more time talking about broader concepts. I’m not terribly happy about this but I’m less happy about picking something specific which Origen talks about and say, “This is what 3rd century Christians thought.”

1 See Claudian, Against Rufinus(In Rufinum). He sprinkles criticism in elsewhere too.

Claudian, Maurice Platnauer, trans., Claudian (2 Volumes). Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library (1922).

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 8, 2014 in Historiography, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2014 Kalamazoo Registration is Up

The online registration for the 49th annual International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University is open. This year’s Congress will be held May 8-11 at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Great conference which I always enjoy though I wasn’t able to make it last year and it’s questionable if I’ll get there this year, though I have hopes.

If anyone wants way more information than you probably want to read, you can check out my Kalamazoo page for recruitment posts, tips, and summaries from the past three times I’ve attended. Wonderful event and a lot of fun. I encourage you to attend if you can.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 6, 2014 in Conferences

 

Tags: , ,

Reading Christianity Interregnum Number 2

With Tertullian finally out of the way, this is something of a “catching my breath” post. I have a couple of more books on Origen to read and I imagine a post will follow shortly. I have about 25 more Christian authors to read before I get to Lactantius, my final pre-Nicene author. This is not as scary as it sounds as several of these are minor authors. The person I have my sights set on is Cyprian of Carthage.

But it will be some time before I get to him. I have a few authors who predate him such as Hippolytus and Julius Africanus. Once I finish them and before I get to Cyprian I plan on tackling the neo-Platonists; Iamblichus, Plotinus and Proclus (and any others I find to be important).

All of that won’t take so long but I have some secondary sources on second and third century Rome and early Christianity which I should go through. When I add all of them up, I think I have 23 books to read before Cyprian.

Usually when this happens I caution that this blog may become quiet for a while. I’m going to try to avoid that. I have a couple of basic, general posts on the way I view some things which I think may be interesting and if not, I want to mention them anyway. I’ve also started using well-out-of-my-period books as “what I read before I go to sleep” material. I don’t have to concentrate on them as much but, as with Medieval Italian prisons, I am hoping I’ll come across other stuff interesting enough that I’ll want to post on it. And somewhere in the middle of all this, if I can figure out how to summarize it in a couple thousand words, I want to talk about philosophical influences on Early Christianity. But I need to get through the neo-Platonists first.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2014 in Blogology

 

Tertullian XII: Summary

I’ve re-written this section several different times and am still not sure it captures what I want to express but I’ll have a go anyway. There are some things about Tertullian which are very intriguing. One of these is trying to assess how influential he was during the Medieval period. As I’ve tried to relate, he is the first to offer some concepts which later became prominent themes in Christianity. His thoughts on Original Sin and the way he defines the Trinity are significant advances over anyone who wrote earlier, at least that I’ve come across. It’s difficult to say whether these were innovations of his, or if his writings reflect what was already believed in the Church, at least at Carthage. I expect I’ll learn more on this as I continue and I also expect to find that it was a mix of the two.

As I’m now in the middle of Origen I’ve found it interesting that he, not Tertullian, seems to have drawn more attention from modern historians. Is this because Tertullian’s writing style is so harsh and unappealing? Is Origen considered a better example of the merging of philosophy and Christianity? Is it because much of Origen has been lost and historians are trying to recreate what he may have contributed based on fragments and subsequent developments? Or is Tertullian just simpler to understand where modern historians look at him and what’s already been written and don’t think there’s much more to be said? Origen’s influence is more subtle. At this moment in time I’d say that of the two, Tertullian was more influential though I have a lot yet to read and may change my mind.

I’ve written enough on him that I think you can figure out what I thought was important. I have been struck by his inconsistent consistency and my summaries of his thoughts on marriage and military service capture this, I hope. The change in tenor and content in these areas is a nice micro-example of how people often respond when threatened, by retreating even more strongly into their core beliefs. I think Tertullian’s fate points to an important difference between the pre- and post-Nicene Church. Tertullian’s group, the Montanists, appears to have been labeled as heretical. Yet they were not cast out of the Church, at least not all of them. Even at his most strident, Tertullian writes as a member of the Church, to misguided colleagues, not to enemies. Two centuries later and I think it likely that he would have been cast out of the Church and anathematized.

My focus on specific concepts may have detracted from, or at least lacked enough emphasis on, an area where I think Tertullian profoundly influenced those who would follow. Perhaps even more than his thoughts on specific aspects of dogma and doctrine, where Tertullian had a great detail of impact was by introducing a new type of dialogue; one less interested in debate and discussion and a search for truth but focusing instead on the certainty of belief and providing defined, stricter guidelines regarding what it meant to be a Christian. To this point Christian authors had been engaged in discussion and debate. They had points upon which they were beginning to reach agreement. Christ certainly was the Son of God, he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Men could be saved, body and soul. Those who lived sinful lives would be punished. However there remained points of debate. Did God intend that men would reside in Hell permanently or might they also be saved after a period of punishment? How did Adam’s sin impact Humans, particularly after the resurrection; was this sin redeemed by Christ’s death so that men and women were born with a “clean slate” or did this open a path for redemption despite people being weighed down by Adam’s transgression? Should Christians live as part of Roman society or separate themselves from it? These and other issues were points for discussion and debate, so Christians might draw closer to understanding God and the truth.

Tertullian didn’t bother with that. There was fact and falsehood, truth and lies. He believed what he believed and this was what all Christians should believe. Once a Christian believed and understood, the need for further investigation was ended. I have profound doubts as to whether this was good for the development of Western Civilization but good, bad, or indifferent, it certainly was there. Tertullian comes across as far more Medieval in his outlook than Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or even Irenaeus. In fact he comes across as less interested in debate and discussion than many Christian writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. This is an essential element of his legacy.

I feel as if my use of large chunks of quoted text rather than picking things apart in more detail was a bit of a shortcut and maybe more exposition on my part would have been helpful. But that takes more time and once I was several thousand words into this I began to realize that the only way I’d ever finish would be to let Tertullian speak for himself. Fortunately, while he often took a long time to come to his concluding statements, once he got there he didn’t mince words. This type of tactic works much better for him than for those who were more nuanced. I don’t think I’ll be able to use this method when I talk about Origen.

That’s it for Tertullian. I wish I could say that’s all I have but it isn’t. I could probably add another 10,000 words. And as I finish this up I’m wondering what will happen when I get to Augustine. Tertullian’s source information was a full volume and another hundred pages or so in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series. Augustine gets 8 books all to himself and his influence is so much greater. Yeesh.

I haven’t been able to come up with a succinct statement to wrap all of this up. Instead I’ll defer to Eric Osborn who quotes J. Danielou:

Tertullian’s achievement was not merely cultural and linguistic, but above all intellectual. For ‘despite his obvious originality, he displays those characteristics which are to be found throughout Latin Chistianity: a realism which knows nothing of the Platonist devaluation of matter; a subjectivity, which gives special prominence to inner experience; and a pessimism which lays more stress on the experience of sin than on transfiguration’. 1

NOTE: Below I’m including all of the sources I used throughout these twelve posts even though I used very few of them for this one.

1 Osborn (1997), p. 7, quoting J. Danielou, The Origins of Latin Christianity (London, 1977) I finished Osborn while I was in the middle of writing this series of posts and as much as possible stayed away from using him. His book is a detailed discussion of what Tertullian meant in his various writings. Well, I had my own ideas about what he wrote and wanted to share them, even if they’re wrong. This is a good book though a bit pricy. I don’t think he said I was wrong too often.

Coogan, Michael D., ed., The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Edition With the Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2010). ISBN:9-780-195-28955-8.

Kleist, James A., trans., The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias, The Epistle to Diognetus, Ancient Christian Writers Number 6. New York: Newman Press (1948). ISBN:0-8091-0247-1.

Osborn, Eric, Tertullian, First Theologian of the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1997). ISBN: 978-0-521-52495-7.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-083-1.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (entire), Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004). ISBN: 1-56563-084-X.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-086-6.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Part Fourth: Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-086-6.

Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Volume 3: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2012), ISBN(for series): 978-1-56563-116-8.

Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Volume 6: The Principal Works of St. Jerome. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2012), ISBN(for series): 978-1-56563-116-8.

Thorpe, Lewis, trans., Gregory of Tours: The History of the Franks. London: Penguin Books (1974). ISBN: 9-780140-442953.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 3, 2014 in Religion

 

Tags: , , ,

Charlemagne and His Bones

For the past few days reports have been circulating about analysis of bones found in Aachen Cathedral. I’m not going to offer much discussion of this or what it means here other than to repeat what others have found. Basically, analysis of the remains, on top of previous investigation, has provided pretty strong confirmatory evidence that the bones found in Charlemagne’s sarcophagus are indeed those of Charlemagne.

The remains interred at Aachen are those of a tall, thin man who likely walked with a limp as there is evidence of bone deposits related to injury in his heels and kneecaps. The full results of this investigation haven’t been published yet so it will be interesting to see what the results of an expected DNA analysis will provide.

Karlsschrein
The Karlsschrein, where Charlemagne’s remains (most of them) were interred.
Photo from Wikimedia Commons

For me, I think this makes a nice transition to briefly talk about my current level of knowledge of the Carolingians, sort of a precursor to when I get out of Early Christianity and start reading up on Western Europe from the end of the 7th century to about 1000 AD (and very possibly later).

The Carolingians have always fascinated me. I’ve mentioned how when I first started reading on Medieval History, now approaching 20 years ago, within a few years I found that what interested me the most was the concept of a large, cohesive society (the Roman Empire) falling, breaking up into total chaos, then reforming itself. Keep in mind this is what I thought at the time. Once I started reading up on it it didn’t take long to find out that the reality was very different from the previous process and that I had a lot of misconceptions which I’d need to correct.

This leads me to a major misconception I likely have/had; my willingness to buy into the Carolingian myth. How well does what came to be believed about them match with what actually happened? This will be a main point of investigation for me. I don’t want to detract from the “pre-study level of knowledge” post I’ll likely put up, similar to what I wrote as I was beginning to look at Early Christianity. However the Carolingian Empire was highly romanticized after its dissolution. Subsequent rulers frequently used the Carolingians as justification for their own rule as they claimed to be direct inheritors of the divine right first acknowledged by Pope Zachary and later confirmed by Pope Leo III’s coronation of Charlemagne. Part of this justification likely meant portraying the Carolingian Empire as far more cohesive than it was. How much of this myth-making have I retained? How much of it reflects reality? How did this process take place and what were its impacts? Above all; where will this lead me (and how long will it take)? I guess another question is to wonder when I’ll finish up with Early Christianity and get to this but that is unanswerable.

I’m going to close this post here and offer a couple of links which discuss the recent evidence regarding Charlemagne’s bones:

From Medieval Histories, an online magazine about Medieval History: Bones of an Emperor

From The Local, an English-Language German news source: Charlemagne’s Bones are (probably) Real

 

Tags: , ,

Tertullian XI: Just a Few More Topics

I have several topics I’m going to briefly cover here even though there’s enough material for some of these to create individual posts. But I think a dozen Tertullian posts is enough. The reason why I’ve had so much to say about him is that Tertullian is writing for a different reason than prior authors. The Apologists such as Justin Martyr wrote to defend their faith against Pagan and Jewish criticism. Irenaeus was concerned with countering heresy. Clement wanted to help Christians negotiate conflicts between living within the Church and as Roman citizens. Tertullian writes from within the Church, to the Church, to explain what it means to be a good Christian. He covers more topics and in greater depth than anyone who came previously. It’s a new direction for Christian writing and I think noting this and what he says is important to illustrate a direction the Church would eventually go in. Unfortunately, by briefly covering a bunch of subjects this post is going to be a bit clunky. Anyone who’s read this blog for very long knows I like to cover things in some depth.

First I want to mention a few things I’m not going to talk about. Tertullian wrote an Apology which I didn’t find terribly different from those of the second century. Roman Gods were demons or famous men, Moses predates Greeks who borrowed their ideas from him, the only accusation against Christians which sticks is their name, etc. He also wrote against the Jews with, again, fairly standard themes. His Prescription Against Heretics and other heresiologies, while providing some interesting concepts on philosophy and the Trinity, don’t provide any information on heresy which Irenaeus failed to cover. In his various writings he shares previously offered thoughts on the Resurrection of the Body.

However he does bring up other issues I’ve not seen before. I’ll briefly (and insufficiently) touch on some of these.

Martyrdom

Tertullian’s with everyone else on Martyrs being especially blessed and believing they may ascend to Heaven more quickly than the normal believer. In contrast to Clement, he opposes fleeing from persecution but advocates standing your ground and accepting Martyrdom. His treatise (written as a letter), Of Flight in Persecution (de fuga in persecutione) addresses this specific theme:

“For if persecution proceeds from God, in no way will it be our duty to flee from what has God as its author; a twofold reason opposing; for what proceeds from God ought not on the one hand to be avoided, and it cannot be evaded on the other. It ought not to be avoided, because it is good; for everything must be good on which God has cast His eye.” Of Flight in Persecution, IV

As usual, when there’s something in scripture Tertullian disagrees with, he finds a way around it. Despite Christ advising the Apostles to flee in the Gospels, such as in Matthew, X.23, this does not apply to Christians of his day. That was advice given to the very first Christians, Christ’s companions, so they might live to preach and spread the Word of the Gospel. The Word has been spread so this advice no longer applies (this isn’t his only reason for contradicting Jesus’ advice but I won’t cover all of them or I will need a separate post). (Of Flight in Persecution, VI-X)

As he finishes up, Tertullian equates fleeing persecution with denying Christ, “You have confessed Him; so also, on the account of your unwillingness to confess Him before many you have denied Him. … The refusal of martyrdom is denial.” (Of Flight in Persecution, XII) “He who fears to suffer, cannot belong to Him who suffered.” (Of Flight in Persecution, XIV)

Idolatry

It will surprise nobody that Tertullian condemns idolatry, as does every other Christian author. There are many reasons given for this ranging from the Ten Commandments to a general, “this is what the Roman do – worship stone and wooden images.” However Tertullian goes further than previous authors in his treatise On Idolatry (de idololatria).

Writing during an early stage of his career, Tertullian contradicts his later opinions of philosophy and advocates that it’s permissable for a Christian to learn from, but not teach, pagan literature, “Learning literature is allowable for believers, rather than teaching; for the principle of learning and of teaching is different. If a believer teach literature, while he is teaching doubtless he commends, while he delivers he affirms, while he recalls he bears testimony to, the praises of idols interspersed therein.” (On Idolatry, X

Where this really gets interesting is when Tertullian tells Christians that they can engage in no profession which might somehow contribute to Idolatry. Is a Christian involved in the production or trade of incense? Then he is guilty of idolatry for these are used in ceremonies. Do you raise livestock which may be used in the ceremonies? Train gladiators who may participate in the games? “No art, then, no profession, no trade, which administers either to equipping or forming idols, can be free from the title of idolatry …”

One of Tertullian’s most famous works, The Shows (de spactaculis) is really an extension of this theme. Shows, the theater, the circus, and games are all dedicated to the Roman Gods. These are, then, idolatrous, and Christians are forbidden from participating in or attending them. Demons and evil spirits feast on these events and the blood spilled there.

Pleasure

This is a theme which I was really tempted to devote a post to. However Tertullian’s thoughts are simple enough that I don’t really need to, it just would have been one of the more entertaining topics to talk about. In essence, any passions are to be guarded against. Pleasure is no exception and must be avoided, particularly strong feelings, which may lead to desire, which may lead to covetousness, and so on. The Shows, XV-XVII

Related to this – or maybe not but it’s notable enough that I have to mention it someplace – is where he mentions that when assessing what is acceptable behavior, Christians should not search scripture to avoid what is forbidden. Instead, they should read scripture with an eye on what is specifically permitted and only engage in these behaviors:

“For if it shall be said that it is lawful to be crowned on this ground, that Scripture does not forbid it, it will as validly be retorted that just on this ground is the crown unlawful, because the Scripture does not enjoin it. What shall discipline do? Shall it accept both things, as if neither were forbidden? Or shall it refuse both, as if neither were enjoined? But ‘the thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.’ I should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.The Chaplet (de corona), II.

To be fair, the above must be a rhetorical device. After all, I don’t believe scripture ever specifically gives a person permission to, for example, trim a hangnail or try on a pair of sandals to see if they fit but I can’t imagine he thinks these sorts of activities should be forbidden. It does, however, show the lengths he was willing to go to argue against what he felt was an overly permissive Church and loose living by Christians.

The Vengeful God

Tertullian’s God is not the gentle God of love but a fierce, vengeful God. Tertullian intersperses his thoughts on this in a variety of areas. Some earlier authors proposed that all souls will eventually be saved, if appropriately purified. Tertullian’s God is not so forgiving. From fear comes love and obedience. “Foolish man[Marcion], do you say that he whom you call Lord ought not to be feared, whilst the very title you give him indicates a power which must itself be feared? But how are you going to love, without some fear that you do not love?” Against Marcion, I.XXVII

God has a responsibility to punish, “Moreover, it would be a more unworthy course for God to spare the evil-doer than to punish him, especially in the most good and holy God, who is not otherwise fully good than as the enemy of evil, and that to such a degree as to display His love of good by the hatred of evil, and to fulfil His defence of the former by the extirpation of the latter.” Against Marcion, I.XXVI

This concept is not precisely new, it’s just that Tertullian goes beyond any previous author in discussing it, to the extent of contradicting “turn the other cheek” in favor of “an eye for an eye.” “Eye for eye does our God require; but your god does even a greater injury, (in your ideas,) when he prevents an act of retaliation. For what man will not return a blow, without waiting to be struck a second time.” Against Marcion, II.XXVIII

Several times he comes very close to saying that God actually created evil, rather than this being a result of free will, as most other authors say. God creates a penal evil; evil which is actually divine retribution, “Of the latter class of evils which are compatible with justice, God is therefore avowedly the creator. They are, no doubt, evil to those by whom they are endured, but still on their own account good, as being just and defensive of good and hostile to sin. In this respect they are, moreover, worthy of God.” Against Marcion, II.XIV

The Last Days (of Rome)

Tertullian also provided a twist on The Last Days. He stands with the majority (to be honest I can’t think of an exception) of prior authors in believing that the Last Days are near. However several times he asserts that man will know that the Apocalypse has arrived when the Roman Empire comes to an end. “For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth — in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes — is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire.” Apology, XXXII

and:

“A Christian is enemy to none, least of all to the Emperor of Rome, whom he knows to be appointed by his God, and so cannot but love and honour; and whose well-being moreover, he must needs desire, with that of the empire over which he reigns so long as the world shall stand — for so long as that shall Rome continue.” To Scapula, II

This is a new and interesting take on the Last Days. It was a common theme in post-Nicaean Christianity. Once Christianity became, not just legitimate but the official religion of the Empire, a reason for the Empire’s existence became so the Word of God could be more easily spread to all (Roman) people. Once the Word had been sufficiently spread, the Empire’s purpose would be fulfilled and it could end. Hydatius seems to share this viewpoint. Tertullian is the only pre-Nicene author I’ve read who believes this. He seems to be well ahead of his time with this concept.

Matter

By this time the idea that God created matter, rather than working with preexisting matter, seems to have been well on the way to becoming established. Justin Martyr, writing 60 years earlier, believed that God used unformed matter (First Apology, X) but every later author that I recall felt otherwise. Still, it appears that some Christians continued to believe as Justin had. Tertullian’s treatise, Against Hermogenes was written against a Christian whose sole crime was believing that God used pre-existing matter to create the universe.

In some ways I felt this was a weak treatise overall. One of Tertullian’s foremost thoughts is that if God had not created matter, Hermogenes was stating that matter had more power. Earlier Christians had often denounced Roman Gods as mere objects of stone or wood and discussed how sculptors would have demonstrated power over them by being able to mold their matter as they saw fit. The same should hold true for God molding the world. Still, by devoting an entire treatise to the subject of matter, Tertullian advances this discussion considerably. One important development is when he counters Hermogenes’ assertion that if God created matter he must also have created evil. First and simplest is his statement that Hermogenes’ argument that matter was both good and evil and the world is stuck with evil because God did the best with what he had to work with is a denial of God’s omnipotence and changes the very nature of God. (Against Hermogenes, I) Additionally, it provides an excuse for men to do evil; if they are created from evil matter, how are they to blame for their actions? (Against Hermogenes, XII)

The Soul

My Original Sin and Purgatory posts already discuss some aspects of the soul. Beyond these two ideas (and the necessity of baptism) I think it’s important to mention that in his Treatise on the Soul (de anima), as with other topics, by the sheer amount of time and depth of argument which Tertullian is willing to invest, he moved the conversation related to the soul’s nature significantly forward.

Among the issues he discusses is a firm denial that the soul is divisible, as philosophers and some earlier Christians believed. 1 The soul is created at conception. He is the first author I recall who states that the soul is delivered into a woman by semen and men can feel this happen, ” … I cannot help asking, whether we do not, in that very heat of extreme gratification when the generative fluid [semen] is ejected, feel that somewhat of our soul has gone from us?” Treatise on the Soul, XXVII

One of his main points throughout this treatise is that the soul is corporeal. It has weight and substance, though this is different from man’s physical body. It must be as it rules men and moves them and how could something without substance cause motion? Within this treatise Tertullian states that all men are created equal intellectually but their environment results in different results. He mentions health, bodily condition, what nation and beliefs one is born into, and exposure to education, “How much more will those accidental circumstances have to be noticed, which, in addition to the state of one’s body or health, tend to sharpen or to dull the intellect!” Treatise on the Soul, XX

Proof of Christ’s Divinity

Tertullian uses a new strategy in trying to prove that Christ was the promised Messiah, the Savior. When looking for quotes on the nature of Christ I came across this passage which I think is illuminating:

“I am safe, if I am not ashamed of my Lord. ‘Whosoever,’ says He, ‘shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.’ Other matters for shame find I none which can prove me to be shameless in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.On the Flesh of Christ, V

There are two points from this passage. One is that man should not be ashamed of his flesh (though of course he should not adorn it either). The other is a rhetorical device of Tertullian’s which fits with the modern saying, “That story’s too crazy not to be true/for someone to have made up.” Tertullian uses this regularly as proof of the reality of Christ. What good would it have been for the prophets to declare (as some heretics state they did, for example in Isaiah) that Christ was to be born of a young woman? Young women have kids all the time. But for someone to be born of a virgin? This shows the miraculous intervention of God. He uses a similar argument regarding Christ’s resurrection. That he died is one thing for all men die. But to be resurrected?

There’s actually a third point but I already covered it in my post on the nature of Christ. Christ was willing to subject himself to every humiliation which man might undergo, to the point of being hung from a tree, pronounced as a curse in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 21.23

Prior to Tertullian, every author I’ve read tried to make sense of the virgin birth and resurrection by explaining the Old Testament prophecies in such a way as to predict Christ. Tertullian does this plenty but here he tries something new. I thought the “too crazy not to be due to God’s intervention” strategy was impressive. The guy was harsh, absolute and aggressive but he could also be brilliant.

Miscellaneous

There are various points which I found interesting but aren’t that significant. For example, it appears that during the early third century, while Mary was definitely a virgin when she bore Christ, there was no requirement that she remained a virgin afterward (Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity), as Tertullian relates that it is certain that Christ had brothers. On the Flesh of Christ, VII

Also, as what was and was not scripture continued to be defined, Tertullian is critical of the Shepherd of Hermas but places a great deal of value on The Epistle of Barnabas. (On Modesty, XX

One item is, I think, notable for its lack of mention. It’s obvious, I hope, from what I’ve written that Tertullian was very ascetic, particularly regarding sexual activity. However I do not believe he ever mentions or hints at any sort of monasticism, either eremetic or cenobitic. I can’t say whether this means that no type of ascetic activity was taking place or just that he believes that a Christian should be a member of the larger community but I found this interesting.

I think it’s important to note that of the authors I’ve read, Tertullian shows more familiarity with the New Testament than anyone who preceded him. In particular he relies on the Pauline letters but he also quotes from the Gospels and Acts quite often. Earlier Christians relied more heavily on the Old Testament, particularly to provide evidence from prophets foretelling the coming of Christ.

That’s it for topical posts about Tertullian. I’ll have one more short post as a summary (this one ended up much longer than I hoped it would be, over 3,000 words) and then I can move on to someone or something else.

1 Platonists, for example, believed in a soul containing three natures where only the intellectual or logical nature would survive death while the emotional and desirous/appetitive parts would cease to exist. Early Christians often had trouble describing what the soul is or how it functioned. Many pretty much ignored the subject beyond stating that man had free will and the soul would be resurrected and either saved or punished.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-083-1.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (entire), Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004). ISBN: 1-56563-084-X.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-086-6.

Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Part Fourth: Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2004), ISBN: 1-56563-086-6.

Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Volume 3: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2012), ISBN(for series): 978-1-56563-116-8.

Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Volume 6: The Principal Works of St. Jerome. Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers (2012), ISBN(for series): 978-1-56563-116-8.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 29, 2014 in Religion

 

Tags: , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers