I agree with Graham about the central problem medieval scholars have
with the word pagan--quite apart from its root meanings (for which, by
the way, see the works of Peter Brown) or its modern meanings by
neo-pagans. If I can summarize the issues, the main points seem to be:
1. The word pagan in medieval texts is used purely in opposition to
Christianity, or the three monotheistic religions. So the term has a
distinct bias; if we as scholars use it, we adopt the tone and view of
the sources.
2. Pagan lumps together a variety of different religions or belief
systems that a modern scholar might want to distinguish from one
another. The term is inaccurate and vague and therefore best avoided if
at all possible.
3. There is no single word substitute for pagan, because such a
word would suffer from the same problems outlined in 1 and 2. What we
need are context sensitive words.
4. The word pagan can still be used in certain contexts, for
example if one is describing a source's point of view, in which an
author describes another group as pagan. It then behooves us to
identify what the author means (ie "non-Christian," "polytheist," or
"animist") and perhaps speculate on what the belief-system might have
been (ie "Odin worshipper" or "Mithraist").
5. At all costs, we should avoid dividing the medieval world into
Christians and pagans. Especially when discussing conversion, pagan can
be seriously misleading, as when someone questions how a Christian could
practice a "superstitious or pagan charm" calling on the Trinity and
using holy water. My personal preference is to speak of folklore (as in
Germanic, or Anglo-Saxon) without necessarily associating a particular
medicinal practice with a religious system unless there are clear
indications of a religious nature (eg, naming Odin). Even then, I think
we need to use caution in talking about "pagan remnants" when they occur
in a strongly Christian context (eg, a monastic manuscript of the tenth
century full of liturgy, etc). Odin can continue to be a powerful
ancient figure in the minds of self-described Christians without those
Christians engaging in pagan worship of Odin.
I'm not sure whether these points clarify or confuse!
Karen
--
Dr. Karen Jolly
Associate Professor, History
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
[log in to unmask]
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kjolly
>From this we infer that all who live on this earth have to begin with
the use of the senses upon sensible objects in order to go on from them
to a knowledge of the nature of intellectual things. Yet their
knowledge must not stop short with the objects of sense.
Origen, Against Celsus 37 (ANF 4:625)
These things apply to all human beings who possess natural reason. Yet
they more specifically apply to those called philosophers, who are wise
in the things of this world. Their job is to ponder the creatures of
this world and everything which is made in it, and from the things which
are seen, to perceive in their minds the things which are invisible.
Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (CER 1:142)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|