Translate

Search This Blog

The Scriptorium

Showing posts with label Middle Ages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle Ages. Show all posts

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Foucault and Greek Sexuality (Paper)



Greek Sexuality

Greek sexuality in the ancient period can be seen in two distinct ways: that of Foucault as being devoid of sexual discrimination and that of John Boswell as being sexually defined. Between these two historians lay many examples pointing to a clear emphasis is the classical period on understood and socially constructed homosexual relationships that differed dramatically in clearly defined ways. These examples will be used to support John Boswell's illustration of sexuality in the classical Greek period as superior to Foucault's. There are two distinct areas within this sexuality that illustrate the existence of homosexuality in the classical period, in light of Foucault's insistence that this distinction is not possible. The first area is in overturning the assumption that passivity and activity in homosexual relations were necessarily different than in heterosexual ones. The second is in determining that age does define the appropriate context of a homosexual relationship.
Defining passivity and activity in the Greek classical world as a tool to be used in determining the socio-sexual determination of the participants involved is shaky at best. In need of even graver consideration is the defining of homosexual men as members of a lower class than heterosexual men based on the socio-sexual determination of activity and passivity. In his work The History of Sexuality Foucault paints a picture of homosexual men as being regarded as inferior to heterosexual men due to the perceived effeminacy that homosexuals are supposedly labeled with for their 'passive' acts. Farther from the truth Foucault could not get. Plato states in the Symposium,

“Those who love men and rejoice to lie with and be embraced by men are also the finest boys and young me, being naturally the most manly. The people who accuse them of shamelessness lie;...A clear proof of this is the fact that as adults they alone acquit themselves as men in public careers.1

Plato, one of the most accomplished and respected citizens of Athens, goes on to reason that homosexual soldiers would make the best army in the world.2 To limit the understanding of sexuality in the classical world to socially relative terms such as activity and passivity is academically inaccurate when there is first hand accounts that clearly show the existence and celebration of the homosexual lifestyle. Even in Greek mythology there are myriad examples of homosexual action.3 The heterosexual love of ancient Greece was even displayed as something that was transcended by homosexual love. According to Boswell, ”The Attic law-giver Solon considered homosexual eroticism too lofty for slaves and prohibited it to them.4
The other area in which Boswell draws a distinction between modern historical study and the actuality of the period is in the age discrimination that was purportedly applied to same sex relationships. Foucault portrays these relationships as occurring almost solely between young boys and old men. He seems to encourage the idea that same sex relationships (homosexuality) between two older men would result in those parties becoming social outcasts. However the opposite is actually true. Apart from the quotes above, Boswell also portrays this discrimination between age as against what Foucault is implying. The ageism here means that now Foucault is further distinguishing male on male sexuality not just as homosexual (a term which is supposed to subsume all other archetypes of male on male sexual relations but) act but now as a homosexual, age dependent act. For example, Euripides at age seventy was loved by and in love with Agathon.5 This is just one among many example that Boswell is able to provide. Furthermore, with respect to activity/passivity, there is no unambiguous document that defines age as a criterion for determining who was the one to be loved and who would love the beloved. Because of the lack of factual evidence, Foucault appears to be using later texts of the Middle Ages when attempting to explain the clearly homosexual-friendly reality of the classical Greek world.
In all Foucault is wrong in assuming that homosexual relationships in classical Greece were generally considered socially unacceptable with the only exception being based on a different age dynamic. Instead, classical Greece was a place of homosexual acceptance and even celebration with homosexual relationships being held, in many instances, in a higher regard than heterosexual relationships. Furthermore the idea that homosexual relationships were looked down upon is clearly dispelled by Boswell.
1Plato, Symposium. 192A cf. Phaedrus's Speech
2 Boswell, John. "Introduction." In Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. p 25.
3ibid (see Hercules)
4Boswell, Christianity et al. p 27
5Boswell, Christianity et al. p28 n.52   

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

A Discussion of Papal Authority in the High Middle Ages (Paper)


A Discussion of Papal Authority in the High Middle Ages

The following paper will discuss papal authority as viewed by Ivo of Chartres and will include a discussion on the Concordat of Worms as read in: Miller, Maureen C..Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 



Power in Europe in the 11th and 12th Centuries was split between the nobility and the church in a murky power arrangement that neither side clearly understood. In the latter half of the 11th century the Bishops of Rome began to accumulate more direct power over the various sees in Western Europe placing them in direct conflict with the presiding Emperors and Kings. The most notable of these transgressions was with the Holy Roman Emperors of the German States which erupted into a wider battle with both sides claiming the right to appoint bishops and other church officials. What has been termed ‘The Investiture Conflict’ would culminate in the Concordat of Worms in 1122 with the Emperor Henry V coming to terms with Pope Calixtus II.1 In the agreement the Emperor gives up all claims to investing Bishops in his lands with symbols of spiritual power and returns all lands and goods taken from the church by himself and his father. In return he was granted the right to invest bishops with secular power.2 Some years previous to this Ivo of Chartres raised a few fundamental points on the relationship between King and Church in his letter of rejection sent to one Hugh of Lyon, an apostolic legate appointed by the Pope. In his letter he states that papal authorities have been asserting the power of the Bishop of Rome in ways that hinders the church or does not improve the church at all. He further states that it would be much easier for the local councils to vote for new bishops themselves rather than have them appointed to their posts by the Pope. Ivo also argues against the entire investing conflict because he does not see the harm in a king instating a bishop as it does not involve preforming any sacraments.3 While all these claims were made in Ivo’s Correspondence the only one actually addressed in the Concordat is the issue of the actual investing of bishops therefore, the issues presented by Ivo of Chartres were, for the largest part, left unaddressed in the Concordat of Worms.
In Ivo’s letter to the papal legate he asserts many points. The first and most important of these is the request not to be bound so tightly by papal laws that, according to Ivo, are not necessarily within the canonical laws that are exercised by the bishop of Rome. One may view this as a sign that while the Church was united they did not yet view the Bishop of Rome as the supreme power of the church. This is in spite of the fact that The Dictatus papae was written almost 30 years prior claiming more widespread authority for the Pope.4 This neglecting of the Pope’s authority can provide the historian with a glimpse into how the church in the High Middle Ages worked. Judging by the fact that many German bishops during the 1070s and 1080s rejected the authority of Gregory VII and called actively for his abdication until his death in 1085, one might say that the church was not centrally controlled by Popes at the time.5 This is fundamental to understanding why this conflict came about in the first place. In Ivo’s opinion the Pope was overstepping his authority by trying to broadly increase his authority not only over Emperors like Henry but also over bishops like Ivo. Central to the Pope’s aims was his claiming succession from St. Peter. In the eyes of Gregory VII this gave him the power to bar kings from heaven, appoint bishops from afar, and create new canon law. According to Ivo and his view on earlier church fathers, this should not be the case but rather the see of Rome should act in reference to the writing of predecessors instead of making up laws which benefit itself instead of the entire church.6
The second point made by Ivo inquires whether or not investiture by kings is truly a problem. This almost argues for the king to appoint the bishops otherwise, in effect, the church was saying that the kings and emperors were not holy. This was a direct contradiction to the populist ideas of the time as promulgated by Guibert of Nogent shortly after the letter by Ivo. In this account kings were able to miraculously heal their subjects with the slightest touch.7 This is powerful evidence for the social acceptability of Kings investing bishops. If kings were holy how could you deny them that power? At the same time Ivo states that it shouldn’t matter whether or not kings took part because in the end the bishop was invested by God himself. In this objection the historian may see why so many bishops supported the German Emperor in the first place. If the King or Emperor were seen as a holy figure in and of themselves as suggested by the tomb of Edward II and subsequent description in which bones of dead rulers where dispersed amongst his kingdom, the Bishops of his territory would naturally support him as: A-he was the one to invest them originally and B- They saw him as a way to contact god, as with saints.8
Ivo also argues that it is the power of the local clergy to appoint a bishop by election and that the pope should not interfere with this right unless that power had been granted by ancient rights of church fathers, which it had not. 9 Later, this power will be usurped by the pope as shown in the account of a disputed election in Auxerre. In other words the power of the popes is almost insured by the vague wording in the Concordat. Any power not expressly denied to the pope is still open for Papal rulers to somehow take as their own.
In the Concordat of Worms, the king gives up his ability to invest members of the clergy with symbols of Divine power such as the Staff and Ring. By doing this he has now limited his power to strictly temporal possessions and is therefore reliant on the church to provide him with divine absolution. In return for his cessation of investing with divine symbols Henry receives the ability to invest church officials in a more secular way with a scepter representing the power he is giving them over his lands. In this sense the clergy have now separated themselves further from the nobility by retaining more power for themselves in the form of divine investment which is done at the cost of the Kings and Emperors. The clergy will now solely hold the power to allow people into heaven. This is seen when Gregory VII excommunicates Henry IV, in essence barring him from heaven as the Pope is the direct successor to St. Peter, the Gatekeeper of Heaven.
In addition to the Emperors not investing clergy with divine symbols, the Concordat also states that any property that was seized by Henry or his father was to be given back to the church.10 This is actually a major setback for the nobility because large tracts of land that were previously granted to the nobility have since fallen into the hands of the Church through bequeathments and wills. This only served to strengthen the demands that the church made on the nobility.
Adjudicating the dispute between the church and the nobility is not an easy task for the brightest of men at the time of The Investiture Conflict and Ivo of Chartres is no exception. While many of his points about the differences in opinion between the two parties is spot-on the only actual point that is resolved in the Concordat of Worms is in regards to investment of actual bishops and leaves unresolved the issues of Papal authority, clergy autonomy, and the holiness of kings.
1 Miller, Maureen C. “The Agreements of Worms” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 120-121

2  ibid Miller, "Power and the holy..." pp.120-121


3 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

4    Miller, Maureen C.. "Pope Gregory VII, The Dictatus papae." In Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 81.

5 Miller, Maureen C. Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. p. 105

6 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

7 Miller, Maureen C. “On Royal Powers” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 162-163

8 Miller, Maureen C. “The Tomb of Edward II, Foreword” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 168-170

9 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

10 Miller, Maureen C. “The Agreements of Worms” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 120-121

Friday, April 27, 2012

Abelardian Ethics (Paper)


  For Abelard the key to ethics is not in the acts that are perpetrated but in the consent, will, and desire to perpetrate them. In order to illustrate these claims and explain why it is sinful to consent to acts, Abelard uses four examples: a monk among women, a man with a homicidal master, a man marrying his sister, and two hangmen.
  The monk in Abelard's example is forced into sexual relations with women against his will. Here will is used to mean consent, as opposed to will meaning desire. For the monk to be engaged in sexual relations of any kind is prohibited by his solemn vows. The question here is whether the monk has committed any sin. According to Abelard there is no sinning on the part of the monk because he did not consent to the acts performed upon him by others.
  In the case of the servant with the homicidal master who kills his master in self defense, there is sin involved. Because the man desired life and so killed his master to prevent him (the master) from killing the servant, he had the will to murder. Even though he did so in self-defense he had a desire to kill his master to save his own life. However, this desire alone was not sufficient to make him a sinner. That final turn comes when he consents to killing his master. Desire alone cannot commit sin in the same way that a person who has a disposition to being mad is mad only when they consent to be mad, not all the time. Our servant in this case is a sinner for consenting to murder but not for murder itself. In Abelard's words he is a sinner without a bad will for as Abelard points out he is not to be blamed for not wanting to die.
  In the third example Abelard gives a man marrying his sister as the purported sin. In this example we are told that knowledge about the purported act that is going to be committed is necessary for the consent to the act to be considered sinful. If a person knowingly decided to marry his sister he has given consent to eh act therefore, even before the actual marriage, he has committed sin. However if he does not know that the person he is marrying is his sister then he had no intent to commit sin and therefore is free from blame.
  In the fourth and final example given by Abelard we are shown that intent, as mentioned above, is based on what God considers to be sinful or not. When hanging a man to comply with Justice, i. e. God's Law, it is not sinful to kill someone as it is not the intention of the executioner to sin but rather to uphold an ideal. This is opposed to the hanging of a man because the killer holds a personal grievence with the executed and therefore is only seeking vengeance. His intent here is to purposefully commit a sin rather than uphold Justice. Because of this he has committed the act of consenting to kill while the righteous executioner has only consented to upholding Justice.
  In addition to these example Abelard says that a life without sin or the temptation to sin is none existent. We must struggle against our desire to sin in order for us to lead a moral life. The disposition of our mind at a point in time might make sinning more likely but in the end the individual must always willfully, knowledgeably consent to the perpetration of said act, even if that act is not carried out, in order to sin.    

Saturday, March 10, 2012

The Ontological Argument (Paper)

This is a short essay written for the class of Dr. Thomas Williams, University of South Florida, Medieval Philosophy and involves the response of Anselm to his critic Gaunilo in his work The Proslogion. From this argument stems the current ontological view. Enjoy.


    Anselm's reply to Gaunilo, as illustrated in the Prosologion is, in effect, a restating of his earlier remarks in a slightly clearer manner. By this it is meant that the interpretation of Gaunilo's objections that Anselm uses portrays Gaunilo as saying, “... That something than which a greater cannot be thought is in the understanding no differently than from that which cannot be be thought according to the true nature of anything at all...{and} that it does not follow (as I say it does)that that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in reality as well simply because it exists in the understanding...”1In response to this thesis on the part of Gaunilo, Anselm replies that, “Furthermore, if it can be thought at all, it necessarily exists.”2 Therefore the reader can assume that according to Anselm, any thing can be thought of of which nothing greater can be thought, that it must exist.
   
   The philosophical principle behind this lays in many different sources but Anselm argues that, in accordance with divine simplicity, if you can think of God (i.e. that than which nothing greater can be thought) he must exist have always existed because otherwise you would have brought the idea of God into existence thereby giving God a beginning. However God is the essence of Beginninglessness because he is a perfect being. Therefore if God does not have a beginning then God would have existed before you thought of Him, thereby making Him a Necessarily Existent being.

   Anselm goes further in saying that it is absurd to think that than which nothing greater can be thought could exist only in the understanding. In order for that than which nothing greater can be thought to exist in the understanding it exists there because it is understood, comprehensible. He supports this by saying that if the idea exists in the understanding then it must have been thought. For a person to have something that they do not understand in their understanding is a negation. From there he lays out the idea that if it were to exist solely in the understanding then it is not that than which nothing greater can be thought but rather that than which something greater can be thought.
    
   At this juncture he refers to the lost island idea. He says that it is impossible for someone to think of a lost island, the most perfect island in existence, as not existing because when it is described to a person they understand what it is. If they were thinking of something that than which nothing greater can be thought, they would be thinking something that cannot be thought. Therefore he says they would in essence not be thinking at all.3 Because of this that than which nothing greater can be thought cannot be thought not to exist.4

   Anselm's final argument in support of his idea for the existence of that than which nothing greater can be thought to exist in reality, he says that the argument that that than which nothing greater can be thought is impossible to think due to our lack of understanding is not correct. He points out that when we think of good we compare goodness based on things that are familiar to us and that we understand. We use these understandings to formulate the highest good. He says that the same thing applies when we think of anything in relation to God.


1Hyman, Arthur, James J. Walsh, and Thomas Williams. "Proslogion." Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2010. 161-181. Print. p. 176a
2ibid
3Ibid pp 177b
4ibid

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Italian Inquisition (Paper)

Here is a rather longer paper that I just finished for my seminar in Medieval Marginalization. It is a scholarly look at primary and secondary sources regard heresy and accusations of such in 16th century Italy. Enjoy.



Injure me, for you I nurture.”1
Jeremy Eames
History Seminar
Dr. Gregory Milton
11/18/2011





For Large Wood: 55sols 6 deniers
For vine-branches: 21 sols 3 deniers
For straw: 2 sols 6 deniers
For four stakes: 10 sols 9 deniers
For ropes to tie the convicts: 45 sols 7 deniers
For the executioners, each 20 sols: 80 sols
-Inquisition accounts for an execution2
There are many things that qualify Italy as the birth place of the Renaissance, among them printing, universities, art, architecture, literature, philosophy, and trade. However when one thinks of Italy as a place of learning and commerce they inevitably miss the other factors that made such richness possible. There were three lives that perished to pave the way for the modern era and each will be examined. The reader will note that they are not the lives of explorers, inventors, or rulers, but of heretics. Included is also a brief account of political usage of heresy in the papal elections. This is included to show that accusations of heresy could be solely political in nature. The following essay will examine the lives of Girolamo Savonarola, Reginald Pole, Domenico Scandella, better known as Mennochio, and Giordano Bruno in an attempt to understand heresy and its political uses. As a precursor to these micro histories the reader will find a brief summary of the political turmoil in Italy and will then progress on to the circumstances surrounding each accusation or trial of heresy.
Like all history one cannot simply step into a specific event without first placing it into context. Because of this the reader will begin their journey at the beginning of the 1480s and continue through 1600. This will enable the reader to place each trial in a framework of ideology and time that, as the reader will see, lends itself to both persecution and marginalization.
In response to relapsed Jewish converts, the Spanish inquisition was established in 1479. While this was not directly tied to events in Italy it can be used to illustrate the wider tone of inquisition in Western Europe. The Borgia were in power in Italy along with the Medici's and Sforza. Witchcraft was on the rise in Italy along with the rise of printing, particularly in the city of Venice. This rise in literature, especially literature that was available to the masses is important to note. Knowledge was no longer held exclusively in the hands of the powerful. This rise in printing will lead to an increase, not just in accusations of heresy but also to the burning of convicted heretics. During the time period of 1550-1560, Italy also launched what has afterward been termed the Counter Reformation. This was a direct response to actions beginning in 1517 with Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of a German church. Political turmoil is rampant in Italy with the French and Spanish making repeated invasions into both southern and northern Italy. They replace many governments, such as the government of Milan, which the French King claimed as his own and took the title of the Duke of Milan3, and Naples, which was seated with a Spanish Viceroy, with puppet rulers of their own.4 By any accounts this time in Italy's history is a violent and turbulent time. The task at hand is to discover how these political situations had an influence in creating an atmosphere of persecution and marginalization. To discover this the reader should turn to one of Italy’s power-broker families and their interactions with Savonarola and how this Dominican Friar affected, and was affected by, a politicized Italy.
Delving directly into the political arena the reader will begin our series of micro histories with Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican friar born in Ferrara Italy in September 1452.5 In his tumultuous career he was mentored by his grandfather and attained larger instruction in the world at large before committing to the life of a mendicant.6 His recall to Florence in 1490 would begin his fall into the flames, though the friar did not know it.7 Recalled to a city that was full of vice, this itinerant preacher found a stable home in which to preach against human wrong and evildoing. According to O'Brien the people flocked to his sermons and when the French began their invasions in 1494 the local lord, a Medici , fled the city and the government turned into a primal theocracy based on eradicating human temptation to the physical world.8 In order to understand the fall of this preacher however the reader must also understand the man that in all but words sentenced him to his fate, Pope Alexander VI. This Pope was, according to O'Brien the exact incarnation of all that Savonarola found wrong with Italy.9 He was a man that had fathered several children while in ecclesiastical positions and was able to purchase the Papal Miter from the richest of Roman families. 10 While acting as a cardinal he received a letter from Pope Pius II rebuking him for taking part in an orgy in the city of Siena. A small excerpt reads, “All Siena is talking about this orgy.... Our displeasure is beyond words.... A Cardinal should be beyond reproach.”11
This was an entirely worldly man, who was known to have used his office to reap immense payments for letters of indulgence and even goes so far as to list what kind of indulgences are available each day of the year.12 Savonarola enters into the Italian city of Florence as a preacher against many things that had come to be associated with the current Pope. Let us take an in depth look at the content of these sermons and why they received such a brutal reprisal.
Upon Savonarola's entrance into Florence in 1490 he began fiery sermons against the vice that had gripped the city for decades. His appeal spread throughout the city until he was, in essence, the moral leader of the city.13 His attacks on the physicality of the rulers of the city, of the secular clergy, and eventually the ecclesiastical community eventually led to recognition by Pope Alexander VI. His actual beliefs here become more important as Savonarola saw a single ruler, such as the pope, as a simple unifier of corruption who was responsible for the moral failure in society instead of for its morality.14 In an attempt to silence the friar who, in the interim between French invasions, had managed to effectively become the autocratic leader of the city of Florence, Pope Alexander VI sent a brief to the friar in which he congratulated him on his efficacy and summoned him before the pope to further explain his doctrines.15 According to O'Brien this was simply a ploy to get the priest within his grasp and thence to silence him and Savonarola saw it as such. With his first request spurned by Savonarola the pope went to further lengths to silence the preacher by refusing him the ability to preach openly upon pain of excommunication.16 This ban was revoked a few months later with a college of theologians declaring that nothing Savonarola had said was anathema.17 Over the course of the next few years Savonarola never left Florence nor, with the exception of a brief entrance of the plague into the city in 1497, did he cease preaching to the community.18 His sermons however once again incited the wrath of Alexander VI and he was excommunicated in 1497.19 Despite this turn of events he continued to publicly preach in the square of the town, the Duomo, and even went so far as to preach that his excommunication was a heretic.20
The reader should note that here a man eventually burned as a heretic himself is making accusations of heresy against the populace in general. He then took the fatal step of writing letters to secular leaders calling for a change in papal power to be effected by their hands.21 These letters eventually fell into the hands of the Pope himself. Savonarola was subsequently arrested. Under pain of torture he confessed to many things, all of which were later recanted, that enabled the Pope to brand him as a Heresiarch. On May 24th 1498 Girolamo Savonarola was led to the gallows, hanged, and then burned until nothing remained.22 The primary cause here, judging by the decision reached by the college of theologians about the content of his sermons, can easily be seen in a political light. It was not the actual occurrence of heresy about which the Pope was concerned but rather the way in which Savonarola was able to influence people against the vice and corruption inside the church that worried him. The influence that Savonarola had inside Italy was a danger to the Pope, both politically and morally. The moral outlook of Savonarola was ultimately positive and seeking redemption while the Pope was simply after vengeance.23 This wide moral chasm between these two men precipitated the eventual death of Savonarola not due to theological differences but due to power dynamics. In this case the accusation of heresy was enough to sentence a man to death even though, according to the documents available, there was never any evidence for the heresy that he was accused of and then admitted to under torture, only to later recant it. This is a clear cut case of hard ball Papal Politics.
Moving forward from the power struggles of the powerful with a mendicant friar, let us examine the role of one Reginald Pole briefly. Upon his death bed Reginald Pole was to Rome a Lutheran and to Germany a Papist.24 A man that seems to have been stuck between two worlds in a highly polarized environment in the middle of the 16th century. Pole was well known for being a supporter of the Spirituali, a group pushing for reform from inside the Roman Curia. The intriguing part of Pole was that even though he was accused of heresy several times in his life by both Lutherans and Catholics he came within one vote of obtaining the Papal Miter, that is until the arrive of the French Cardinals and his re-branding as a heretic. 25 While these accusations were unfounded, they did reference the ideas of reform that Pole had at the time. In the nearly 7 months between the death of Pope Paul III and the ascension of Julius III papal politics are seen within a context that used heresy, and specifically the accusation of heresy, to eliminate a contender for the Papacy. Fenlon here disagrees and speaks of other causes that might have excluded Pole from the Papacy. Among his list are the facts that he is English, and hence a foreigner, the fact that after the election of Julius III Pole held many other offices for the Curia including the position of Papal Legate to England.26 While these are accurate, these reasons still do not rule out the use of heretical accusations in denying the papacy to Pole. More instrumental in doing so was the questioning of his orthodoxy by the cardinals assembled.27 It should also be noted that in 1550 Pole was appointed as one of seven members a council to protect the faith against heresy.28 This can be used to illustrate that the heresy he was accused of did not have long-lasting effects and was hence a politically expedient way of denying him the papacy.
With the increase in papal inquisitions beginning with the establishment of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1542 one can find a very clear image of the type of heresy that it was targeted to root out by examining the case of Domenico Scandella, better known as Mennochio. The work of quintessential importance here is that of Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller. In this work Ginzburg examines the mind of a sixteenth century, surprisingly well read, miller. Mennochio is well known for espousing his beliefs from a mixture of misunderstood works and his own pontifications on the world at large.29 Why then did the Roman Inquisition take such an interest in a man that had been elected to several offices in his small town outside Venice. And why, upon reaching a conviction at a second trial did the the Papal legates hesitate in his sentencing and require the interest of the Pope before they would act? Lets first examine the actual functioning of the inquisition at this time.
The usual course of action would involve having a period of leniency in which people could openly repent of the sins and be accorded a reduced penance.30 Following this the inquisitors would begin a general inquest into the population extolling all people to come forward and give names of heretical persons in the area.31 The first time around, this second step seems to be what ensnared Mennochio. Following this general inquest with a list of heretics to prosecute, the inquisitors then collected evidence against the accused. While this evidence and witness collection is taking place the accused is normally held in the local jail to deter fleeing. Once the evidence is collected the trial begins.32
According to O'Brien, the strongest part of the inquisition was their relentless insistence on maintaining records from each trial.33 This was sure to have an impact on Mennochio and will lead to his eventual death. In Mennochio's case historians are allowed a glimpse into popular culture and can attempt to extrapolate several things from his responses to the inquisitors questions. As Ginzburg himself argues, the way that Mennochio thought is actually more accurate a depiction of everyday people rather than seeing them as all selfless drones that believed exactly what they were told. The point that Ginzburg does not tease out of the documents is, why did the Inquisitio decide to prosecute Mennochio in the first place?
I would argue that, because he is in a position of power in the town both as a 'politician' of sorts and as a miller, the political ramifications of him remaining in power would have been, in the eyes of the church, been detrimental to the populace's souls. Also because of the proximity to the Calvinist and Lutheran populations in Switzerland and Germany, the impetus for the Roman Curia to take special interest in the case of Mennochio should not be surprising. The Pope himself, after the second trial in which Mennochio is found to be a relapsed heretic, urges the Inquisitors to carry out their sentence swiftly and execute Mennochio.34 This execution and desire for a swift punishment can further illustrate the way in which Mennochio's trial had political implications. By providing this public spectacle, the Pope effectively showed that the price for deviation, not just heretical but also political deviation, is deserving of death. The way that Mennochio could have influenced his neighbors was a risk that the church could ill afford to take.
Finally the reader will turn to the trial and execution of one of Europe's liberal thinkers of the 16th century, a scientific man known throughout Europe, Giordano Bruno. Bruno's case with first the Venetian Inquisition and then the Holy Office itself serves as a capstone to the previously discussed instances of accusations of heresy. In order to understand the nature of the trial of Bruno the reader must first understand several political factors that led to his arrest, trial, and death. The arrest of Bruno plays out much like a spy thriller with the accused fleeing from Italy to Switzerland to Paris to England and then back to Venice. His education was completed at the Monastery of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples. He spent much of his life preaching about the ideas of science and how the churches ideas of a Heliocentric world were scientifically incorrect.35 He was an avid reader and the start of his chase through Europe is due to his possession of Erasmus' work, an illegal book in Italy because of its heretical thought. Above all it was his desire to be able to speak with the Pope himself and attempt to convince him of the churches wrong.
On his return to Italy in 1592 he is arrested by the Venetian Inquisition.36 Here one must draw further distinctions, for the politics of the era become transparent here. The Venetian Inquisition was a separate and distinct body from the Holy Office. While the Venetian Inquisition was tasked with the area in and around Venice itself, the Holy Office was tasked with the world at large. The Venetian Inquisitor was able to begin the trial of Bruno without much delay however due to the political wranglings with the Holy Office his eventual execution would not happen until 1600, a full eight years later. The main reason for this was his long imprisonment in the Vatican Prisons.37
Of the many reasons that are given by the Doge of Venice not to turn over this accused heretic to the Vatican the most pertinent of these to our case is that of nationalist pride.38 After turning to a well known lawyer the Doge is finally able to acquiesce to the papal demands for Bruno.39 The Papal trial is begun anew in Rome and reaches a guilty verdict. Unlike in Venice, where many heretics were taken quietly out to sea to drown, the papal burning of Bruno was a public spectacle, with a full parade.40 It should also be noted that during this parade the erstwhile Bruno had many philosophical exchanges with the crowd for which he was rewards with 2 stakes, 1 placed through his cheeks to pin his tongue and 1 to pass through his lips allowing him the ability of speech no more.41 Previous to this it should also be noted that this philosopher/heretic also repeated his desire to be rejoined with the holy mother church. Upon reaching the site of execution he was tied to the post and burned. It was the year 1600.
Once again the reader may find themselves asking the question why. One must attempt to decode this trial while at the same time refraining from investing it with modern notions. One can see Bruno as a highly intelligent writer and philosopher with the power of written word. The rise of Venetian printing led not only to his ability to procure Erasmus' work, which led to his eventual arrest but also the way in which he published in excess of 15 works to an audience that bridged 12 different nationalities. His outspoken nature in contradicting orthodoxy in the academic world and assaulting, though inadvertently as a result of his writing, normal church views. By doing this he assaulted the churches power, particularly political power. His transfer from Venice to Rome also served to reinforce the political reality in Italy, that Rome held enormous sway throughout the peninsula. Enough in this case to demand an extradition. This extradition also served to show the way that the Italian states were politically involved with Rome. The reader will remember that the Venetian Doge had to find a politically correct time to allow the prisoners transfer.
In conclusion, this paper has surveyed, albeit briefly, three lives that were terminated by accusations of heresy and one account of a cardinal being accused of heresy to deny him the papal office. In two of the cases the men burned were intelligent, well taught, and capable of directly challenging the authority of the Pope. In a third it was a simple man who, while being literate, did not pose any direct threat to the Pope but rather an indirect capability of foster individuals of more intelligence than himself to actively challenge the church. The part played by Reginald Pole was illustrative of how accusations of heresy could reach into even the highest parts of the church when there was a political advantage to hold. It is reasonable to consider many of the trials and executions in 16th century Italy to be politically motivated rather than economically, morally, or reactionary.







Bibliography

Primary Sources
Anon. Imprint: London : Wynkyn de Worde, ca. 1505
Venitian Wood Cut, c. 1530, courtesy of Early English Books Online. The translation of this piece was done by Jeremy Eames with help from Dr. Gregory Milton, USF, and Oraleze Byars, USF.
Secondary Sources
Anglo, Sydney. Machiavelli: a dissection. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970
Bahar, Sonya . "Giordano Bruno, Philosopher/Heretic." Journal of Biological Physics 36, no. 4 (2010): 329-338.
Thomas James Dandelet, John A. Marino, and Antonio Alvarino. "The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy." In Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion 1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 99-134.
Dandelet, Thomas James, and John A. Marino. Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion 1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Fenlon, Dermot. Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the counter reformation. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.
Finlay, Robert. Venice besieged: politics and diplomacy in the Italian wars, 1494-1534. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
Gatti, Hilary. "Why Bruno's "A Tranquil Universal Philosophy' Finished In A Fire." In Essays on Giordano Bruno. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. 310-323.
Ginzburg, Carlo. The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. 1980. Reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Malley, John W.. Praise and blame in Renaissance Rome: rhetoric, doctrine, and reform in the sacred orators of the papal court, c. 1450-1521. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1979.
Martin, John Jeffries. Venice's hidden enemies Italian heretics in a Renaissance city. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Peters, Edward. Inquisition. New York: Free Press ;, 1988.
Milton, Gregory. "Popular Culture and Witchcraft." Class lecture, History Seminar from University of South Florida, Tampa, October 31, 2011.
Pugliese, Olga. "A Last Testimony by Savonarola and His Companions." Renaissance Quarterly 34 , no. 1 (1989): pp. 1-10. www.jstor.org/stable/2861159 (accessed November 3, 2011).
White, Michael. The pope and the heretic: a true story of Giordano Bruno, the man who dared to defy the Roman Inquisition. New York: William Morrow, 2002. 

Endnotes 
1Venitian Wood Cut, c. 1530, courtesy of Early English Books Online. The translation of this piece was done by Jeremy Eames with help from Dr. Gregory Milton, USF, and Oraleze Byars, USF.
2White, Michael. The pope and the heretic: a true story of Giordano Bruno, the man who dared to defy the Roman Inquisition. New York: William Morrow, 2002. p. 1
3Thomas James Dandelet, John A. Marino, and Antonio Alvarino. "The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy." In Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion 1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 99-134. pp. 99-108
4 Thomas James Dandelet, John A. Marino, and Carlos Sanchez. "Naples and Florence In Charles V's Italy:
Family, Court, and Government in the Toledo-Medici Alliance." In Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion
1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 135-180. pp. 135-140
5John A. O'Brien, "Savonarola: A Heretic?." The Inquisition. New York: Macmillan, 1973. 159-182. Print. p. 159
6O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 160
7O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 160
8O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p 162
9O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 172
10O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 166
11O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 165
12Anon. Imprint: London : Wynkyn de Worde, ca. 1505
13O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 160
14Sydney Anglo. Machiavelli: a dissection. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970 pp.198-199
15O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." pp. 161-162
16O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 162
17O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 162
18O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163
19O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163
20O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163
21O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163
22O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." pg 181 ,For a more in depth account of the last days of Savonarola please see Olga Pugliese, "A Last Testimony by Savonarola and His Companions." Renaissance Quarterly 34 , no. 1 (1989): pp. 1-10.
23John W. Malley, Praise and blame in Renaissance Rome: rhetoric, doctrine, and reform in the sacred orators of the papal court, c. 1450-1521. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1979. p. 111
24 Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the counter reformation. Cambridge: University Press, 1972. pg 280
25Fenlon Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy p. 228
26Fenlon Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy p. 232
27Ibid., p. 232
28Fenlon Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy p. 233
29Carlo Ginzburg. The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. 1980. Reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
30O'Brien, “The Inquisition” pp. 13-15
31ibid., pp. 13-15
32 John A.O'Brien, The Inquisition pp. 27-35
33John A. O'Brien, “The Inquisition” p. 43
34Ginzburg pp. 127-128
35Hilary Gatti. "Why Bruno's "A Tranquil Universal Philosophy' Finished In A Fire." In Essays on Giordano Bruno. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. pp. 310-323.
36Hilary Gatti. "Why Bruno's” pp. 310-323
37White The pope and the heretic p. 141
38White The pope and the heretic pp. 140-146
39White The pope and the heretic pp. 140-146
40White The pope and the heretic p. 181
41White The pope and the heretic p. 181


Sunday, November 20, 2011

The Black Death (Paper)

A think that another academic post is in order and have decided to display one of my papers on the Black Death. I hope you enjoy it.





            The Black Death that swept across the Mediterranean in the middle of the 14th century resulted in different responses among various portions of the population.  The responses to the Plague range greatly throughout the Mediterranean Basin. In The Italian States we have evidence of a limited response by certain parts of the populace which saw an increase in moral laxity. In Germany and the Low Countries, however this was counteracted by an increase in penitential flagellants who became known for a strong, yet misguided, piety bordering on hysteria.  Therefore moral laxity was not a contributing factor in the development or spread of the disease but was, along with other more religious acts, a response to the Plague.
            In order to gauge the differences in morality before and after the Plague one must first provide a description of morality before the plague. In medieval society in the high to late middle ages, morality was normally something that was closely monitored in society. Women were expected to be modest and clothed in a manner as to reveal as little skin as possible. The family unit was the basic economic factor which led to an expectation of family supporting each other. Fathers were the head of household and were responsible for the care of the wife, children, and, at times, extended family. Priest played a major part in the morality of society by providing direction to lost souls and preaching sermons on the correct way in which to worship and please an angry God.[1] They were also responsible for the burying of the dead and last rites at funerals.[2] People also respected their neighbors property and assets in accordance with the Ten Commandments. After the coming of the Plague c. 1348 many of these moralities would fall by the wayside as people struggled to cope with the Black Death.
            Woman’s modesty according to some sources became notably lessened in the wake of the Plague. Women after the Death had no qualms with showing more skin in public as illustrated in the account of Boccaccio. In addition to this lack of visual modesty it is also noted that women in some parts of Europe, instead of being 'barren', were instead marrying in great numbers and procreating in large numbers.[3] This might be seen as a natural reaction to the Death that was sweeping Europe. Women abandoned their previously 'moral' existences and instead joined together in what De Venette called 'wanton abandon'.[4]
            The family unit of Europe was a central figure in the lives of peasants and aristocrats throughout medieval Europe. Men were expected to provide for the family to the best of their ability. This included providing care to the sick. However, with the coming of the Plague this family unit began to disintegrate.  Husbands left wives, brothers left sisters, mothers left children.[5]  The basic unit of life in their world would disappear as each person sought to deal with the plague as they saw best. This change in social normalcy was brought on by the idea that death, being so rampant, it was only a matter of time, in the minds of people, before they each succumbed to it. This undoubtedly led to an increase in the wanton behavior many people displayed, moving from house to house or tavern to tavern drinking repeatedly to excess and treating their bodies as carelessly as their livers. Further evidence of moral laxity is present in several accounts in which there are descriptions of people liberally taking possession of the dead or dying's property. Even though no relation is held by those taking the 'movable items' it still occurred quite often.
            In order to atone for both original sin and the sin incurred by a single person there arose a sect of Christians who deemed it prudent to enact penance for their sins. This penance however, was extreme in nature and religiously unsanctioned. The participants of this sect, called 'Flagellants', would, as their name implied proceed to both whip themselves and be whipped by another with long leather straps to which were affixed thorns of wood or iron which tore at flesh as they were applied. These reactionaries believed that they were atoning for their sin as well as atoning for the sin of the community.[6] The penitents would travel through towns and cities enacting a procession which drew large crowds of spectators who all, “..felt pity for the said penitents.”[7] This form of self sacrifice however was not condoned by the church and the pope even went so far as to provide bishops license to excommunicate members of the sect, partially due to the fact that husbands were simply deserting their families in order to repent with the group.[8] The act of self-flagellation was simply another example of people acting against long-standing moralities.
            Priests in 14th and 15th century Europe during the Plague were seen by a wide swath of the population as lazy or greedy. It is noted that many priests were actually ordered back to their dioceses by their Archbishops in addition to being censured for extorting peasants.[9] The local populations were more apt to charge that the priests were not fulfilling their duties in regard to burying the dead with their last rights.[10] However being as the priests died at roughly the same ratio as the rest of the population the fact that there were simply just not enough of them to bury the massive amount of dead is a better explanation than that they were simply lazy. The priesthood also speaks out against the hysteria of the flagellants possibly even lowering their worth to the common people as the common people more than likely viewed the flagellants as at least attempting to do something to assuage the anger of God.
            Art also played a large role in depicting the lack of morality with regard to the Plague.  Worms begin to have an increasing presence in tombs particularly when illustrated as partaking of the flesh of the dead, yet even when not they could also be found in poems that where placed alongside the crypts.[11] This shows a marked departure from earlier forms of decoration, highlighting the perception of what life living with the Plague was like. The other common  sight seen in art is a sense of impending doom involving the figure of Death playing chess with participants in which the participants follow death into the afterlife after losing at his 'game'.[12] This sense of dread was used as a justification in abandoning normal ideas of morality.
            In all, the effect of the plague produced an era of relative licentiousness in which inhabitants freely abandoned previously established moralities. This was an effect of the Plague rather and not a cause of it. The laxity that is seen, such as lack of modesty, drunkenness, and lack of following proper religious protocol can all be seen in the accounts of post-Plague Europe.


[1]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Petrarch pg72
[2]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Boccaccio pg 79
[3]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Jean De Venette pg 83
[4]    ibid
[5]    Boccaccio pg 77
[6]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Fritsche Closener pg 133
[7]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Gilles Li Muisis pg 132
[8]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.King Philip VI of France. Pg 138, Muisis pg137 Heinrich of Herford pg 122
[9]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Hamo Hethe, Bishop of Rochester pg 106
[10]  Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Simon Islip, Archbishop of Canterbury pg 105, Hamo Hethe, Bishop of Rochester pg 106
[11]          Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. A Disputacioun betwyx the Body and Wormes pg176
[12]          Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Death as Chess Player pg 168