At 07:02 PM 10/6/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Where does Augustine work through the separation of history and
>revelation?
mostly in his de civitate Dei, esp books 18-20, where he expounds the Ticonian
notion of the two cities and their opaque relationship. but this actually goes
back to the first books where he is at great pains to insist that the "fall" of
rome is not an apocalyptic event. the best treatment of this is Robert Marcus,
Saeculum -- a great book except for the final chapter.
> I'd be interested to follow up this line of thought.
>I've been looking at the writings of Otloh of St Emmeram from a very
>different angle, but was interested to note that he also writes of
>the events of his own time (mainly the break-up of monastic estates
>c. 1040's) as the fulfilment of the prophets of the apocalypse that
>satan would be unleashed.
most interesting, since this is what glaber does for the heresies of 1000.
glaber is writing the final part of his work (book 5) in the 1040s. a
comparison might be interesting. otloh wd mark the link btwn glaber and the
late 11-early 12th cn reform advocates who see the battle with the empire in
apocalyptic terms.
rlandes
>Hannah Williams.
>Monash University
>Victoria
>Australia
>
>> after augustine it was forbidden to "read" contemporary history as a
>> fulfillment of prophecy, esp of apoc prophecy from Revelation. history
since
>> the incarnation was, essentially, opaque (see robert marcus, *saeculum*).
>this
>> insistence on a non-apoc reading of history "held" for almost 6 cns
>(400-1000)
>> in the formal histories of the time. even when someone started to slip (eg
>> Gregory of tours in the early 590s), he'd cite the "little" or synoptic
>> apocalypse (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21) rather than Rev. but the evidence suggests
>> that at the oral and popular level such apoc readings of current events were
>> widespread. in gregory of tours, charismatic prophets spring up after signs
>> and prodigies like mushrooms after rain (eg X 23-25). rodulfus glaber
>> represents the first historian to openly invoke revelation in his reading of
>> history (II 11, the heretics of the millennium as fulfillment of the
prophecy
>> that antichrist is released). this is the beginning of a process that will,
>> via the crusades, lead to joachim of fiore.
>>
>> you might want to look at the book of Revelation in historiography. the
>early
>> 12th cn figures like Rupert of Deutz (Robert of Liege) and Gerhoh of
>> Reichersberg are, in the wake of the non-apocalyptic crusades, trying to
>create
>> a theology of history for this overextended period of history from xt to the
>> present, this incomprehensibly long "middle age" btwn the two comings. as
K.
>> Morrison puts it in his essay in the mcginn-emmerson volume, these
historical
>> theologians or theological historians (add, obviously, otto of freising),
are
>> the "settled" leftovers of a far more turbulent contest that was fought
>earlier
>> (i read, the crusades). history and revelation -- the two things that are
>> *not* supposed to be joined according to augustinian orthodoxy, are
>constantly
>> (and incorrectly) joined by people all the time. it's just that it doesn't
>> make it into the texts -- just because we don't have the writings of the hal
>> lindsey of his day, doesn't mean there weren't any.
>>
>>
>> Richard Landes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|