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.