tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post145382394254628003..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: The Age of Grace and the Age of JusticeJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-66263901095217670272015-04-17T13:09:19.486-04:002015-04-17T13:09:19.486-04:00Yes, I would say that is important. Different cul...Yes, I would say that is important. Different cultures do have differences of emphasis. The idea that humans have rights, for example, was certainly *known* in the Middle Ages; but in practice pre-Enlightenment people tended to emphasize the specific rights they held in law, essentially as property--or that they wanted to be granted to them, again essentially as property. Thus the difference (for example) between the 1688 English Bill of Rights and the American Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />That reverential attitude toward property is another emphasis you see less in modern times, at least outside the Tea Party. I think this has to do with the fact that property is now thought of mostly as acquired in one's own lifetime rather than passed down in families. The latter is a precious heritage, the former just a possession.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-79621503093566072602015-04-17T12:53:50.164-04:002015-04-17T12:53:50.164-04:00The Gregorian reform is probably the best counter-...The Gregorian reform is probably the best counter-example to Michelet's thesis; they weren't afraid to make substantial changes. <br /><br />I am trying to remember if in arguing with my friends or acquaintances about politics I have ever been told that we should do something because that's the way it has always been done, or that God ordained it. I don't think so. Obviously those arguments exist in our society, most prominently right now about marriage, but it strikes me as important that they are completely missing from the discourse I participate in.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-47961344557373003522015-04-17T11:14:47.932-04:002015-04-17T11:14:47.932-04:00I would say two things:
1) Indeed, at the moment ...I would say two things:<br /><br />1) Indeed, at the moment I can't remember encountering an argument that said "aristocracy is unfair so we should abolish it," but that doesn't mean that medieval people were incapable of challenging customs and institutions handed down from the past on the basis of what they saw as a better idea. When told that his proposals for church reform went against custom, Pope Gregory VII snapped that Jesus didn't say "I am custom" but "I am the Truth." and his movement's proposals included brand new things like the college of cardinals.<br /><br />And if I've never actually seen an argument like that against aristocracy, I've certainly seen plenty of arguments in favor of aristocracy that are other than "it's God's will" and "it's the way our forefathers did." The Siete Partidas (again) says that hidalgos are good things to have because their desire to protect their family honor makes them brave.<br /><br />That is, on specific points they may not have anticipated the French Revolution; but on more abstract issues like change and how one argues for it, they were not so different.<br /><br />2) My experience is that it's generally misguided to say things like "medieval people thought X way" or "were incapable of conceiving Y." All societies are internally divided, and there's always a counterexample.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-80117882827098489722015-04-17T10:54:47.823-04:002015-04-17T10:54:47.823-04:00As for what happens in court rooms or other legal ...As for what happens in court rooms or other legal wrangles, I agree that the difference between then and now is not so great -- we cite precedent and they argued about justice. But at least until the peasants' revolt I am not familiar with any medieval arguments of the form, "aristocracy is unfair so we should abolish it." Or Thomas Paine's argument against royalty. I don't think medieval people shared the notion, so widespread among us, that we should restructure the world to make everything more fair for everyone. <br /><br />Medieval people argued a lot about rights, but they were rights of particular people or institutions, not human rights. The notion of rights was universalized in the 18th century in a way that seems very important to me.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-87112797805037821872015-04-17T10:54:41.720-04:002015-04-17T10:54:41.720-04:00Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Luther's r...Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Luther's rebellion represents a deeply Augustinian protest to medieval attitudes to the divine. The problem in Luther's eyes with salvation by works--not only paying for indulgences, but the whole system of penance, pilgrimage, and so forth--was that these things were attempts to in a sense obligate God, to say that, if you're a good person, if you've checked all the boxes, He "owes" you salvation. Of course, that was not official church teaching about works, but it was surely, deep down, how many folks understood the point of their works.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-35507859169539215342015-04-17T10:16:35.820-04:002015-04-17T10:16:35.820-04:00As you know, I disagree strongly with this vision ...As you know, I disagree strongly with this vision of the Middle Ages. Yes, there were plenty of intellectuals who wanted to argue politics and right from an Augustinian point of view, but part of what motivated them to argue this way was how little the practice of their age actually mirrored that way of looking at things. By practice, I mean both what people did, and the ways that actual political actors argued amongst themselves and justified their actions. Their arguments were often--I would say, usually--justified by explicit, self-conscious statements about interest and right. And even many worldly intellectuals--whom Augustinian types denounced as "astrologers," and such--felt obliged to argue for monarchy in utilitarian terms. The 13th century Castilian Siete Partidas, for example, gives a frankly Hobbesian justification of monarchy.<br /><br />Much medieval political argument was also, of course, legalistic--the king can do X because the law says he can do X--but this in no way differentiates the Middle Ages from us.<br /><br />About the more overtly, thoroughgoingly sacred and divine right arguments, although you can find them in the Middle Ages, they really only attain in the early modern period the kind of cultural purchase that we often attribute to them.<br /><br />Overall, I tend to think that a lot of what we think makes the Middle Ages different from us--otherwordliness, anti-materialism, incuriosity about the physical world, a liturgical sense of time, ennobling courtly love, etc., etc.--represented at the time protests against an overall worldly, flat-footedly pragmatic civilization.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.com