Paul Chandler wrote:
|<snipped stuff quoted from my posting>
| Point taken, Jim. But isn't it still paradoxical that as a way of
| explaining this highly-articulated theology, contradictory metaphors are
| applied simultaneously? The metaphors themselves are generally biblical,
| but put together in new ways which, to us at least, create acute tensions
| on the metaphorical level (mother/spouse, spouse/sister, etc.). Did
| medieval people not notice this? (I took this as the point of John's
| original question).
Paradox yes, and coincidence of opposites perhaps (pace Bonaventure)?
I would think the paradox would have been recognised as a
metaphysical problem if someone had argued that Mary's status as
spouse/sister could be a theological basis for what otherwise was
deemed an incestuous relationship. I haven't come across that, but
this a highly speculative analogy and based on an argument ex
silentio.
Perhaps it is our modern obsession (to which I personally have
no objection) with the primacy of historical realities that can be
the stumbling block here. We immediately think of Mary first as a
historical figure who had a specific relationship with Jesus, ie
mother. Then, from this point of departure we work towards
understanding how a medieval exegete could then present Mary as
spouse, sister, friend, etc.
I wonder if historical status was not considered primary, but
equivocal to the various status created by the theological notion of
grace. Think about how alien the idea of "pre-Christian" would have
been to medieval Christians. These status were as ontologically
based as the historical experience (appropriate word?). Granted, the
historical record was still the point of departure (Mary's place in
Christian thought was established because historically she *was*
considered the Theotokos), but this was not seen as only frame of
reference.
|
| If they didn't, as you seem to imply, but bypassed metaphorical
| inconsistency to focus on the theological referents, then what is the
| nature of the mental change which makes a later readership feel a
| discordance of metaphors and when did it take place? And if the medieval
| approach to the mixing of such sexually-charged metaphors is so different
| from our own, what does that imply for our attempts to understand
| mentalities with regard to sexuality, etc.?
Question one: I have been musing about this for some
time, after a senior undergraduate asked a similar question
(we were reading, in a course I teach, the commentaries on Galatians
by Aquinas and Luther -- an absolutley fascinating comparison). I
initially think that it has something do with the new approach to
reading introduced by Renaissance philology, where the
sententia-approach to reading came under heavy fire. This approach
allowed for an exegete to render a biblical lemmata as having its own
independant meaning. This eventually became known as proof-texting,
but I am suspicious about this term since I think it is more
polemical than historically descriptive.
I need to do some more reading on this, but I would love to hear
what others have to say on this.
Question two: I wish I knew. I really like how Denys Turner began
his book on medieval Canticles commentaries (_Eros and Allegory_),
namely why did celibate monks cling to sexual metaphors for
descriptions of their spirituality. He argues that these metaphors
were best suited for a dionysian framework of christian experience
(did I get that right, Denys?). If he is right, then this approach
would have necessitated a proper understanding of the emotive and
physicality of sexual experience, but at the same would reduce the
actual impact of that same experience in the lives of the readers of
the Song of songs, ie celibate monks were not necessarily
obsessed with sex. Certainly a contradiction, and certainly alien to
our way of thinking. Medieval embodiment is a tricky idea, no doubt.
|
| Thanks for the Grosseteste reference. I did not mean to imply Aquinas'
| view was unique. I seem to recall more on the subject in de Lubac's
| Exegese medievale, which I don't have at hand.
Sorry,. It's me just being overly sensitive about how much
BobbyG is overlooked by historians. I have an article going to press
soon on his theory of the four senses, and I hope to edit a text
along with it which demonstrates Grosseteste's commitment to literal
exegesis.
Cheers
Jim
=========================================================
James R. Ginther
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
---------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: Phone: +44.113.233.6749
[log in to unmask] Fax: +44.113.233.3654
-=*=-
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/trs.html
=========================================================
"Excellencior enim est scriptura in mente viva quam in
pelle mortua" -Robert Grosseteste.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
