In a message dated 97-07-11 13:19:44 EDT, you write:
> > I can't speak about de Voragine, but to say that Bernard of Clairvaux did
> > not read the Bible closely is quite odd. He knew much of it by memory,
as
> > did most monks in houses with regular discipline, where the divine
office
> > was chanted regularly. They had to learn the Psalms by heart from the
> > outset.
>
I was thinking of the story that gets told most often. That Bernard opposed
Anaclete for Pope and was said to have argued that it would be a disgrace for
a person of Jewish ethnic extraction to sit on the throne of Saint Peter. If
Bernard actually said this, I'm not understanding how he could forget that
Saint Peter himself was an ethnic Jew, or a Jewish convert to Christianity.
It just doesn't seem to be a good argument for the context.
Also, memorizing is not a proof of understanding. If I had to choose between
Dante and Augustine as careful readers of the Bible, I'd pick Dante.
Augustine on Psalms, for example, says we are being told that people are
smarter than birds--that this is what the Psalmist is telling us. I can't
for the life of me see how he got that reading. Looks to me like the
Psalmist is saying that birds are a worthy role model for humans beings,
because they sing songs of praise to their creator. In other words, Psalms
is very positive about birds, not--as Augustine seems to believe--very
negative. Granted, he seems to have a different translation of Ps. 74.9,
with the turtledove left out. But even so.
Anyway, I was really interested in the medieval clergy as a whole, not in any
particular clergman. The Church admits, at the Council of Trent, a need to
better educate its clergy. Not clear to me what the educational level was
among the clergy at the time. Anybody know?
pat sloane
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|