WOOOO!

Reading Assignment

Friday: Bede, Life of Cuthbert, from The Age of Bede
Monday: Bede, Lives of the Abbots, from The Age of Bede
Wednesday: Asser, Life of Alfred from Alfred the Great
Selected Documents from Alfred the Great
Paper II prompts will be passed out

Blog Assignment

NO BLOG THIS WEEK!!! Just get your reading done and come prepared to discuss Bede. Also, this is a great time for those who need to catch up on their blogs to do so.

Readings

Wednesday: Gregory the Great, Life of Benedict (in your Early Christian Lives)
and the Rule of St. Benedict (1hr)

one of the things mentioned on friday was.... "who has the power to decide who the bishop is?"we came to the conlusion that the townspeople can vote, by popularity, to decide who can become bishop...but, I don't recall if we mentioned it, but the King and other high political power people gets a lot of say about who gets to be Bishop, or even just who's in the Church's position in general. In several cases, "Saint Gall replaced Saint Quintianus on his episcopal throne, with the full apporoval of the King."(GofT.IV.5), or when Cautinus was confronted Cato, "To spare you the trouble, and with no ulterior motive of my own, i will go to the King and ask his apporoval of your elevation to the episcopate."(GofT.IV.7) Then later on, townspeople wanted priest Eufronius as their Bishop, but King Lothar wanted Cato instead, townspeople eventually got Eufronius as Bishop, but again, after King Lothar had agreed.(GofT.IV.15) This shows that church-positions are definitely required to go through the 'political' structure.
Art

Adam Soroko's blog

From the early years of her life, Radegund was extremely pious and generous to those who were less fortunate than she. This is a theme that continues throughout her lifetime. "While but a small child, she herself brought the scraps left at table to the gathered children, washing the head of each one." She also gave a good portion of her tribute (not sure if it is income taxes or gifts from her husband) to the poor. "[Radegund] paid out what she received lest the burden weigh her down." Although she gave alms at a very young age, the fact that she saw such bloodshed and murder undoubtedly had a profound effect on her. From that point on, she understood the value of life and tried to preserve and better the lives of others. She would clean the diseases and sores of her people consistently in order to keep them alive and well. Radegund also was "more Christ's partner than her husband's companion." She was willing to hurt her relationship with her husband, who was not exactly a fair man in the first place, just to remain faithful and observant to the Lord. Radegund represented a strong and good-willed woman who was more powerful than even most men. However, she never abused her power. Instead, she used it to ensure that her people were better off since she only needed Christ's guidance and not wealth. She maintained her philosophies throughout her lifetime, set an example for future queens, and served as a martyr for her religion.

Although Venantius attempts to recount only one life, his Radegund, interestingly, seems to actually be split into two people who are described separately in Book one and Book two. Book one’s Radegund seems primarily interested in being “a monacha rather than a queen.” Moreover she is also seen punishing herself during Quadragesima and undergoing various voluntary tortures “so that she might become a martyr,” which shows her to be a human working towards the afterlife. However, Book two’s Radegund seems to be less concerned about going to heaven and more concerned about performing miracles. This seems to suggest that she is now not only a conduit of God’s power and his favor, but also somewhat divine. While this creation of two different Radegunds can be dismissed as insignificant, it can be used to see how people moved through the nunnery’s hierarchy. First, a new nun may have to undergo an initiation period where fasting and humility punishments are expected, such as Radegund’s experience in Book one. However, after this period is over, the nun may receive more power to do “good,” which Radegund’s divine power may represent. So, I wonder is Venantius’s recounting of Radegund’s life simply and exaggeration of her piousness made into a good story or possibly her steps to power in the church?

"Soon she divested herself of the noble costume which she was wont to wear as queen when she walked in procession on the day of a festival with her train of attendants. She laid it on the altar and piled the table of Divine Glory with purple, gems, ornaments and like gifts to honor Him. She gave a heavy girdle of costly gold for the relief of the poor. (Fortunatus 13)"
Radegund was not only saintly and wealthy, but she was portrayed as generous and helping in the course readers' reading. On the other hand, in GofT, praises her, all the way until her death. Perhaps, because Gregory wrote more about her in his other book, more descriptions could have been applied about how Gregory felt--Gregory was there at Radegund's funeral, but not much was illustrated there, as opposed to Fortunatus' writing where "everyone was weeping".

Radegund was described as a devoted person who frequents for the help of the Bishop (IX.39), deeming her someone who, thought saintly can't do everything by herself. Yet on occasions, there are descriptions about how even the king Sigibert would give support to her (GofT. IX 40) same goes as in McNamara's writing well Radegund would be heard by bishpos and nuns. In every writing, Radegund was respected and listened by most of the people around her.

Both sources show Radegund as a person so devoted to her religion that she tortured herself to show her faithfulness. However, one glaring difference between the two versions of the story is the childhood. In the first story, the author uses the second paragraph to tell us about her childhood. In the second version of the story, the author goes from his or her introduction immediately to Radegund's life as queen. Despite this difference, the childhood story was only a foreshadowing of what to expect. As a child, Radegund is described as someone wise beyond her years.
I found it interesting that there was an instance when Radegund supposedly deprived herself of food and other necessities of life without the abbess knowing. If this was the case, how come the author knows? Another thing I found interesting is the fact that in the first book she punished herself for not being the first to do things for others. It appears she is doing things for others not because she wants to, but because she wants to win a competition. This doesn't strike me as the behavior of a pious person.

Radegund had a MESSED UP FAMILY!

I'd like to pose a thought to ponder.

In our current society, during the times we live in, pyschological trauma plays an important role in the upbringing, development, and overall basis of our lives. We write off explanations to serious matters like sexual assault and abuse to be the cause of emotional scarring lingering from childhood.

My question is this: how does St. Radegund function the way that she does without a total pyschiatric breakdown? Follow me, her father was murdered by her uncle, who ended up caring for her and her brother. Then her brother was murdered because he posed a threat to the throne, and Radegund fled to become a saint. How does someone surrounded with that much immediate tragedy stay sane?

Woman and Radegund

In all accounts of St. Radegund's life she is described as a pious wowan in that she is, "energetically alms giving", and "she believed that anything that the poor recieved from her was their own in reality." What I see in the accounts of her life from the course reader that I see as different from Gregory of Tours is the way in whicht they talk about her. In the course reader she is described mainly as important because yes she is saintly, but she is a saintly woman and God "wins mighty victories through the female sex and, despite their frail physique, He confers glory and greatness on women through strength of mind.". In general I feel like the authors in the course reader almost see to be explaining away the fact that she is a woman at times so that she might appear saintly. In Gregory of Tours, he establishes that she is a woman, yes, but he never takes the time to descrie her disadvantage of being a woman. In fact, he describes her as having great influence with God and the Frankish kings when Clotild was upset and pleaded in all directions for escape from the "menevolent" Radegund. I would like to know more textual information to gain knowledge of the views of women in the times of all the authors.

Radegund Playas!!!

As we well know in our brief literary forays (at least those that we have elected to do) that Queen/St. Radegund is among the more examined figures of the era. While the details of her marriage and various strifes are among the most noteworthy I found an interesting discrepancy in the descriptions crowning the last era of Radegund's life, in which she took care of a nunnery. 

The article in the reader details Radegund's nunnery as akin to an oasis in a desert of war. While it goes over the difficulties it manages to explain details that sketch the nunnery as a rich and vibrant place. They also explain the difficulties of running the place and examine Radegund's constant pleas for help. They portray her life outside of the spotlight as one of quiet activism and manifestation of the principal's of one's life. While this period of her life seems to be regarded as nothing more than a footnote in these histories I found it quite compelling as it is akin to the political lives led by so many leaders. Look no further than Jimmy Carter, ousted from the Presidency, Mr. Carter has pulled a Radegund and established his own domain as a peace keeping place. 

Though this is a bit of stretch, I wonder if Radegund set the template for many post political careers. 

In Gregory's work, attention was paid to Radegund's life but it glossed over most of the details. It makes her seem like a constant bother to local municipalities. However, it can be argued that most of the work went into explanation of the juicy details of Radegund's life. Being from the era Gregory was probably overcome with the popular tales and his personal relationship. He could have considered her life ending forays as mere retirement trivialities. It wasn't until later scholars that these endeavors were renowned for their worth. 

Radegund Playas!!!*

Readings

***Note-Change in Reading Schedule***

Friday: please have read up through book 9 in Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks.
Monday: Read book 10 of The History of the Franks, as well as the Thuringian War and the lives of Radegund-these can be found back to back in your reader. If you have any questions about the readings EMAIL myself or Stacey!

blog assignment 5

Compare the various lives of Radegund we read. Use specific examples.

Office Hours

Stacey and I will not be having office hours today, but I will be holding office hours on Wednesday at Litera-Tea, the coffee shop behind Doheny Library, after class until 1:00pm.

Gregory of WTF!?!?!?!?!

Because the book starts with a notion embedded in religious belief. Because of multiple arrests for slander. Resulting from a myriad of reasons... I am awestruck and befuddled by the subjective nature of Gregory of Tours' work. While the others managed to hide their slant and manage to slip into thew realm of Historical Text, The History of the Franks remains a map of one man's personal journey.

I wouldn't normally like this. In all likelihood it would cause me to bitch, piss, and moan. However, strewn about on the academic journey that is Jason Glenn's class I can't help but accept these slants as worthy of weight and more meaningful. The prism of this man's life serves as a reflecting p0ol and all0ws us a window into the hard to discern profession of Bishop. We know about the role and its importance but these writings allude to the trickeries and ultimate responsibilities of the job.

I suppose you could say I liked this book. Excuse me for abusing the "free write privilege".

Politics

In book 5 some type of politics rears its ugly head. In the beginning of book 5, Orleans and Blois attack Chateaudun. They pillage the lands of Chateaudun and then, in retaliation, the people of CHateaudun do the same. However, before the situation coudl escalate 'counts' intervened and made peace between the warring factions.

This event shattered my thought that politics were seemingly exclusively shattered by force of arms in this time period. Clearly, there are peaceful alternatives available. As mentioned earlier, however, peaceful resolutions arn't nearly as exciting as a violent and bloody struggle. So, I imagine that politics were actually used more in order to settle disputes peacefully than as described by Gregory. On the one hand, he's a historian. On the other, he wants people to read his books, so it has to be somewhat interesting.

My main interest in The History of the Franks is the idea of taking sanctuary in churches. Hermangild probably illustrates this example the best because when “he realized that he had no hope at all of winning,” “he sought sanctuary in a near-by church” (Book V Chapter 38). What interested me mainly was that this was not an isolated case, and sanctuary was often given at churches. More importantly, military leaders were unwilling to force the church to give up the protected. Gregory seems to think that the leaders were afraid of God’s retribution; however, kings often did not seem to “fear” God as much as Gregory seems to say. So, why did kings not attack the churches giving sanctuary? Was it really because they feared God or did they actually fear the churches? And if they feared the churches why did they? Therefore, because of these unanswered questions I would like to discuss in class the relationship between the churches and the rulers more deeply.

Omitted for a reason?

Chapter 34 from page 228 was omitted and later replaced back into the text. Why? My thought is that the story is a delicate issue... the questionability of everyday miracles. A boy thought it of importance to pray for a miracle to keep the grain dry from the gathering storm, and God seemingly gave him such a miracle by offering a patch of clear sky above the grain. The priests had the boy beaten for basically "wasting God's magic." There are a few problems with this that I can gather right from the start:

1. We are under the assumption at this point in history that there is no question of God's existence. Therefore God had a reason to spare the grain. In punishing the boy who prayed to God, the priests seem to be undercutting and undermining God's intentions and powers, which seems like a hypocritical backwards step in judgment. When every argument is overruled by "god has his reasons," why is this not applicable to priests?

2. Perhaps the priests saw this NOT as an act of God, but of a mere coincidence. It could be interpreted from the passage that the boy was given punishment for constantly relying on "prodigies and miracles," instead of exhibiting some self responsibility. But again, another self destructive hypothesis that doesn't match that of Christianity.

I feel as if contradictory examples such as this help to exploit some of the inconsistencies in religion throughout history. It will be interesting to see how specific Christian idiosyncracies develop through further readings and sources.

Throughout the readings, it seemed as if the things happening on the battlefields, the King's "palace", and the churches are more significant than others, as they are where more of the events happen. I wonder if it is because it is Gregory, a devoted christian, who is writing, that made everything about the churches and religion so important. I understand how the King and the Bishop have strong roles in the society, but, do people who are not as well-read and well-off care so much about the upperclass? ie.) When the famine occured, would the poor worry about the power struggles or just the limited source of food they have. Unfortunately, I would not know how more people there are suffering in the lower class than the upper class.
Happy V-Day.

In the more recent books, we see the arrival of new illnesses and new symptoms. During Augustine’s time, it seemed like everyone who was sick had the fever and eventually died. In book four of Gregory’s text, we still see people suffering and dying from the fever, but now the plague has emerged. We also see King Theudebald suffer a stroke and eventually die and Bishop Cautinus suffer “epileptic fits.” This shows a progression in medicine and may be technology as a whole. Now we have a wider range of symptoms than we did previously, leaving one to wonder how they were able to make these diagnoses. What changes in technology allowed for the discovery of these illnesses? But we must also question whether or not these illnesses were present in Augustine’s time. Could it be that everyone who had a fever would be diagnosed with a fever today?

Free Write

I think that one of the main struggles a king of this time period may have with "Christianity" is the question of power. In this case I am referencing King Lothar. He is a man who has taken over, or at least spread his influence across his world. Here he exclaims, "'What manner of King can be in charge of heaven, if he is prepared to finish off great monarchs in this fashion?" ( GT 217). Gregory tells us that some conflict between earthly power, and what the Kings thought to be greatness in their lives and the idea that they were submissive to someone with no army whom ends greatness in such a manner. I believe gregory is also commenting on whether it really matters to be great and powerful on earth to the God he knows rules over heaven. I am interested to see how Gregory sees the kings and their conflict with religion and defining power changing, if it does, in the rest of the book.

Reading Assignment

Friday: Read Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, book 8
NO CLASS MONDAY
Wednesday: read Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, book 9 and Venantius Fortunatus, Thurigian War and the Lives of Radegund-which are in your reader.

Blog Assigment #4

For this week: Freestyle blog!!! Write about whatever your little heart desires...as long as it relates to Gregory of Tours, and The History of the Franks.

Reading Assignments

By today, Monday 02/11 you should have already read up through book 6 in The History of the Franks
Wednesday Read book 7
Friday Read book 8
** Remember your Friday reading assignment should be done by your discussion section!!! Gregory is watching...like in this lovely 19th century statue of Gregory...

II.27 (pg139)
I chose this chapter of the book mainly for the surprised factor I came about. Under most periods where there'd be a King, I expected the King to be able to command others and not have people stand up to him. However, that was not the case here, as King Clovis had to ask permission for the ewer, and moreover, King Clovis did not immediately punish the man when the ewer was broken. I think this shows part of the structure where the King himself would still have to follow rules and orders, and cannot kill others without a 'reason'. The King has to be "fair" infront of the public.
He later on still discharges the man in a much smaller group setting, just like how he has killed Syagrius in secret; Or perhaps, when I read on further, I will find out if other Kings do the same.

Blog Assignment #3

"'Your piety as a holy man has all this time been just a cover for your depraved habits,' they cried.  'God no longer permits us to defile ourselves by kissing your unworthy hands.' Bricius stoutly denied the charge.  'Bring the child to me,' he commanded.  The baby was carried in, still only thirty days old.  'In the name of Jesus Christ, the son of God the all-powerful,' said Bricius to the infant, 'if I am really your father, I order you to say so, with all these people listening.'  'You are not my father,' answered the baby." (Book II, page 105)

I found the passage about Bricius to be particularly fascinating due to the fact that it is absolutely unbelievable.  The people automatically blame Bricius for the pregnancy of the woman who washed his clothing, which reveals that word used to spread fast and people are not considered to be innocent until proven guilty at the time.  More obviously, a thirty day old baby was able to comprehend the words of a Bishop and respond to them in the same language.  The people witnessing this event most likely credited this astonishing occurrence to the sheer power of God, but it does not make sense to me.  Individuals were blinded by their faith and totally disregarded all common sense that they might have.  Once the baby admitted that his or her father was not Bricius, something he or she could not have possibly known, the townspeople accepted the baby's words as the undeniable truth.  This nonsensical event discredits this account in my opinion and proves that citizens at the time were gullible and truly believed that God could do anything.

The most interesting passage to me was in Book Two Chapter 12 when Gregory tells us that Basina left her husband Bisinus for Childeric because Childeric was “more capable.” I found this passage interesting mainly because Gregory does not seem to portray Basina negatively. Gregory’s portrayal of her was surprising because, at least in Confessions, marriage seemed more binding and breaking a marriage contract was looked down upon. Therefore, we can see how the idea of marriage changed between Augustine’s and Gregory’s view of Childeric’s world. It seems that “Childeric’s” world marriage, at least between royalty, was unstable and people could change their partners when a more suitable one was found. More specifically, it seemed that women could choose different partners and men had to show their superiority over others to keep their women because partners were chosen based on their amount of power. Lastly, women’s ability to choose new partners hints at their greater freedom than compared to Augustine’s time because of their ability to leave unsuitable partners.

(Book IV, pg. 210) “The Franks were furious with Lothar: they rushed at him, tore his tent to pieces, heaped insults upon him, dragged him out with great violence and swore that they would kill him if he refused to accompany them. When he saw how matters stood, King Lothar marched against his will.”
I found this passage interesting because it provides a little insight into what the power structure was during this time period and how it worked. My first observation is the fact that the Franks forced their king into battle. It shows that the king was not all-powerful. The way the Franks opposed their leader reminds me of rebellions. However, they rebelled not for rights or equality, but to be able to wage war against the Saxons. Eventually, the Franks persuaded Lothar to wage war. My second observation is the Franks’ refusal to wage war without their king. For some reason, no Frank chose to take the king’s position and lead them into battle. They apparently needed Lothar in order to fight. They did threaten Lothar, but that was not until he had rejected their demands multiple times. In this passage, the Franks showed both a power over and dependency on their leader.

Blog Assignment #3

I have been intrigued by the role of earthly wealth in the world that Gregory writes about. Professor Glenn is always asking "but why did Beowulf do this?" "what was beowulf's reward?" etc, etc, always looking for the answer of treasure. Material wealth obviously plays an important role in the logic of this world. But isn't that contradictory with what we know of the early Christian religious tenets? In Book One of the Histories, chapter 13, Gregory describes King Solomon and his relationship with material wealth and God..."He [Solomon] scorned earthly riches and asked for wisdom instead...It was Solomon who, in the name of the Lord, built the Temple with wonderful workmanship, using much gold and silver...no comparable building had ever been constructed in the world." This paragraph is interesting because it seems to imply that Solomon's reward for scorning earthly riches was more earthly riches than anyone else on earth. Through other passages in Gregory and our reading of Beowulf we can see that treasure was a central part of culture. But how did these cultures, the Roman and the Anglo-Saxon as understood by Gregory of Tours, reconcile this cultural facet with their clear knowledge of Christian religious pillars?

Blog Assignment #3

For this weeks blog, take a short passage from Gregory of Tours that you find interesting. Post it on the blog (just the citation) along with a paragraph explaining why its stands out to you and what we can learn from it as historians. Make sure that you read everyone else's passages and come prepared on Friday to discuss them along with your own.

*Just a reminder, the blog is due Thursday by 8:00pm. Late posts do not count!

Readings for this week

For Wednesday: Gregory of Tours through Book 3
For Friday: Gregory of Tour through Book 4 and "Laws of the Salian Franks" in the course reader

Future Readings and Assignments

I have been sick for the past couple of days, so I was wondering if anyone could tell me the readings and/or assignments due on Wednesday and Friday. Thanks a lot.

-Adam