Christian Origins of Individuality

Larry Siedentop’s book Inventing the Individual looks at Western history from the birth of Christianity until the fifteenth century, observing how concepts of the individual, specifically individual rights, developed. The book begins with the pre-Christian classical world of Greece and Rome, establishing some of the basics of ancient religion, such as the development of religion within families, then clans, then tribes, then associations of tribes in cities. The religion started with a family hero; as the families grew so did the mythology. As tribes associated to form cities, gods represented natural phenomena and events as it was easier for different families to agree, rather than competing family heroes. Since religion was in the family, exile from the family meant loss of identity, because the exiled also lost their religion.

From these family religions St. Paul turned the world upside down with his teachings on moral equality. (I would add Jesus taught from the same perspective.) With moral equality comes individualism.

"For Paul, belief in the Christ makes possible the emergence of a primary role shared equally by all (‘the equality of souls’), while conventional  social roles – whether of father, daughter, official, priest or slave – become secondary in relation to that primary role. To this primary role an indefinite number of social roles may or may not be added as the attributes of a subject, but they no longer define the subject. That is the freedom which Paul’s conception of the Christ introduces into human identity."  (62)

Chapter four is the key chapter of the book, explaining how Paul’s teachings fostered individuality. The teaching that humans were equal in God’s sight was revolutionary to the ancient world.

After Rome fell the church became the central authority. Christianity starts to merge with politics when medieval cities evolve out of basilicas, and bishops serve as de facto rulers. “The social evolution of the new kingdoms can be inferred from the successive law codes that they promulgated from the fifth to the seventh century” (137). Bishops also became advisors to leaders. Aside from the power within the church, the church exerted influence on all leaders. Charlemagne and his clerical advisers increasingly relied on ‘rhetoric of the Christian people’ when addressing the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Charlemagne wanted that every man understood the oath taken, so as to be liable, and this led to conveying the oath in the vernacular. The oath was to serve Charlemagne “with all my will and with what understanding God has given me” (153). But after Charlemagne’s death, “the threat to political unity was a threat to the universality of the church’s mission. “That is why a ‘political’ will began to form within the church. Previously, it had worked in concert with secular rulers – to ‘civilize’ barbarian laws with the help of Roman law” (175).

During the tenth century the church was threatened within by the appointments of bishops by secular rulers. Some bishoprics became hereditary. The papacy became the ‘plaything’ of aristocrats. With papal reforms, however, the church developed its own court system. Corporate law arose, in part, in response to the papal authority. Corporate law represented the people. “It [liberal thought] emerged as the moral intuitions generated by Christianity were turned against an authoritarian model of the church” (332).  

During 12th century the papal order of authority and law was attempted in the secular world, but not so easily. Not only did kings compete, but different forms of government competed, such as feudalism vs. monarchy. This led to kingships being established over territories. Under the secular authorities, urban insurrections started in the 11^th-12^th centuries. These often led to drawing up charters between the overlords and citizens of cities, which became the basis of later constitutions.

Proto-liberal beliefs developed within the church by the 15th century. They included “the belief in moral equality and a range of natural rights, in a representative form of government and the importance of freer enquiry” (333).

In his history Siedentop confronts some popular misconceptions, such as the church hindered individuality (a modern concept), when it actually fostered it. Siedentop also addresses the concept that the Renaissance was the period of individuality, when the assertion and protection of the individual started in the pre-modern period. The Epilogue of the book addresses these contemporary perspectives. The book provides the historical context to look at a holistic perspective.

P.S. This could make for a good comparison to Charles Taylor’s Sources of Self.

Historical Drama from the Point of View of the Gods

Historical drama – whether stage, film, or literature – is always tragic. We, the viewers, become like the gods of Olympus; we know the future and we know of Fate. Now we want to witness the nobility of those who must live it.

I saw the film Valkyrie, about the attempted assassination of Hitler. Every viewer knows the outcome. The film wasn’t suspenseful; that’s not why I watched. I watched to see the character of those who played out the scenario. Though they may have been fictionalize, somewhat, we know the events to be true. Historical drama allows us to observe that character that we, as people who must live out our own scenarios, without foresight of future or Fate, aspire to.

We know the inevitable end, it is only our character that survives.

A Medieval Approach to Modernity

One good book leads to another, and another, and another, like a bus tour, and along the way you note places to come back to. I’ve bought C. S. Lewis’s Allegory of Love, after searching for a copy for less than fifty dollars over the past several years. I was quite anxious to read the out of print book. (Incidentally, I don’t know why it is out of print since it is often referred to by contemporary essayists. In medieval studies the book from 1936 is an important reference.) The book is a history of medieval literature, specifically works on the subject of courtly love in the form of allegory. Within the bibliography Lewis reviews (more than critiques) the central works of The Romance of the Rose, Chaucer’s Troilus and Cressida, and Spenser’s Faery Queene.

Reading this book of literary criticism prompted me to search for many titles of medieval works referred to. I am extremely happy that many of the works, in their entirety, are available online at Luminarium.org, Project Gutenberg, and TEAMS Middle English Texts. I no longer must resort to checking out large anthologies that only offer extracts. I am reading John Lydgate’s poetry (an author hardly known and usually categorized as one of a Chaucerian school, but who produced twice as much as his idol). He models himself after Chaucer, but he lacks his predecessor’s originality and diversity. His work is enjoyable, however, especially for expressing the courtly ideal of love. I am also reading The Romance of the Rose, which, as I read more commentaries, was a very influential book during the medieval period.

I must have a subject to the essay, besides a little criticism. I need to have something of an issue, don’t I? The one that comes to mind first is one of self-analysis, one to answer if I hope to have any success in the blogosphere: why read medieval literature?

While I have said in the past that I am an anachronism, not at all modern in thought or lifestyle, there is the exception of the computer and internet that I use daily. With the spread of technology comes the spread of information, which is more accessible than ever before. With this information we have the wider diversity of cultures to learn from, and we may customize our lifestyles. We are not limited to the culture that is common around us, except for those that choose to prohibit the technology. You are able to study religions you had little access to before the information revolution; you can study other countries and could even plan down to the details of moving there; you can complete college courses at home; you can correspond with people around the world easier than ever.

My point in all this is you can choose your lifestyle, or what I would call your own culture. I have built something of a culture of my own in my home. If I can choose my lifestyle from all the cultures I can learn of, without the limitations of space, (for instance, I can love English culture as much as American without living there), why limit myself in time? The spread of information includes a great treasure of history. With all that history offers, why must I be modern? This is why I am a Conservative. It’s not that I necessarily want to prevent change, but change for change’s sake is not a good reason. The phrase ‘change is good’ can only be proven after it is the past. I think the desire of people, en masse, for something novel is juvenile.

So I study history, so I read literature of past times, for good ideas to build my lifestyle, my own culture. Here are a few ideas I have recently discovered that I want to include.

“Be courteous and approachable, speaking gently and reasonably to high and low alike, and when you go along the streets, be sure to make it your habit to be the first to greet other people. And if someone should greet you first, do not remain dumb, but take care to return the greeting at once, and without delay. Next, be sure never to use rude words or coarse expressions: your mouth should never be opened to pronounce the name of anything base.”
Guillame de Lorris. The Romance of the Rose. (New York: Oxford University Press 1994) 32-33.

It would be foolish of me to dispel wisdom given from the past, or to think it wise only for one culture, one situation, one time. If it was it would have been only a novel thought.