The History Book Club discussion

The enormous importance of what seem (to me at least) to be relatively minor points of theology is fascinating. I agree with Bryan's comment about the power of ideas! Herrin's turns of phrase such as Saint so and so helping repel an invasion, etc., also helps bring to life some of the magical thinking that seems to have been so prevalent at that time. Or maybe they had it right and we've been brainwashed into focusing on the ephemeral! 1000 years, I'm just sayin' ;-)

OK where to start. Marjorie, you are getting the hang of what is required - very good- for citations. But each and every time you mention an author or book (even somebody or some book you mentioned before) you have to do the citation. Here is Norwich's (I think you mean this one)

by John Julius Norwich

I felt I learned a lot but I guess it is all based upon where you started and you obviously had more knowledge on the subject to begin with.

And thank you for your endorsement of the other. We did include that one in the bibliography but it always great to hear from our members in terms of what they felt they liked.

Jim wrote: "The enormous importance of what seem (to me at least) to be relatively minor points of theology is fascinating. I agree with Bryan's comment about the power of ideas! Herrin's turns of phrase suc..."

Jim, I guess you are right - it could go either way (smile). And so much of their art really incorporated their pagan magical thinking with their Christian beliefs. You could see many times the two blended in their art forms.

Laurence wrote: "In Chapter 4 Herrin talks about the Council of Nicaea.

I visited Iznik, site of the ancient of Nicaea, not far from the Sea of Marmara in Turkey. It was a long day trip from Istanbul, first by fe..."

Thank you Laurence and it is a great thread due to all of the posts from wonderful contributors like yourself.

Iznik sounds fascinating and how fortunate for you to visit that site. I was fascinated as well by the success of the anti-Arians - but you know some of their philosophy on the subject matter is blended into the church's message even today. You still see some elements of it.

As far as miracles, who doesn't like to see a few of those (lol). But I know what you mean. Where is the spirit of the Christmas season and its religious and spiritual message when all of us are fighting throngs of shoppers getting the last Christmas gift. And hating every minute of that.

I have to give it to Herrin -- if I was still teaching my first and second year students basic Christian theology as perceived in the 16th and 17th centuries, Chapter 4 on the history leading to the Great Schism and the time thereafter would be perfect (especially as I used to make them read, among other things, St. Augustine of Hippo to understand where some of the thoughts came from)...

Now then, having said that, whenever I'm really enjoying a book, I find myself reading parts aloud to anyone who will listen... Most of the time, I read to my dogs, who listen to every word, rapt and unfailing... However, this time I chose to read to my husband, the physics and computer science major... Two fascinating observations from him in Chapter III:

* NCAA Division I football programs should have learned from the failure of Diocletian's tetrarchy and never done something as silly as appoint head-football-coaches-in-waiting. Monarchy always wins (yes, my husband's British).
* Theodora may have been the first trophy wife on record. And certainly Justinian I inspired Henry VIII with his willingness to change laws to "get the girl". I wasn't sure how to react to that one :-)...

Sometimes I need a little humor with my history -- luckily, I was able to get some this weekend... Now, continue just as seriously as you were :-)...

Patricrk wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "Patricrk . . . so are you advocating that the Byzantine empire more or less cut its losses, preserving the most important (ie most populated/cultured) portion of the Empire, along ..."

I think that the likes of Caligula and Nero killed off any vestiges of the Roman Republic long before.

Bentley wrote: "What did Herrin mean when she stated: "In the East, the Romans had to contain Persia, always considered the 'other eye' of the face of the known world." What did that mean?

And then the way the p..."

This could be seen as putting the Germanic peoples in a better light. while Constantinople, Rome, and Persia were carving out empires, the German tribes were just trying to survive. They were unwelcome squatters taking land away from legal citizens, the 'undocumented immigrants' of their day.

Kris wrote: "I have to give it to Herrin -- if I was still teaching my first and second year students basic Christian theology as perceived in the 16th and 17th centuries, Chapter 4 on the history leading to th..."

Thanks Kris for your post and humor.

Scott - interesting perspective on why Persia was considered the "other eye". Does anybody have a similar perspective or are there some different ones out there? Herrin has quite a few of these abstruse anecdotes.

I looked up "Noblesse oblige" on wikipedia and found this 21st C comment on modern society:
"Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens." —John Ralston Saul

Scott wrote: "I looked up "Noblesse oblige" on wikipedia and found this 21st C comment on modern society:
"Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an i..."

Love the quote.

Scott great quote; I guess there are no worries here because I do not see the role of charity on the increase this year or any worship of volunteerism (I guess we have to take the good with the bad) - (smile)

However, an interesting quote but when did charity become the bastion of the aristocrats, oligarchs or those pretending to be. Curious? Ordinary citizens can face the world with charity every day and as far as volunteerism; just being neighborly would be a great start.

I hope that everyone is beginning to get into the spirit of the holidays and seasons greetings to all denominations who are group members.

I love the interesting perspectives on all of the quotes and aspects of Herrin's subject matter; it makes for great discussions, interactions and friendly debates.

I also learned that the Byzantines thought themselves Roman. I did not know that. I thought it was more of a true separation from Rome.

Yes, that was a point that was often made by folks who studied the Byzantines - there was a separation as to what they believed religiously at times but never about who they thought and knew they were.

Bentley wrote: "Yes, that was a point that was often made by folks who studied the Byzantines - there was a separation as to what they believed religiously at times but never about who they thought and knew they w..."
John Norwich suggests that as Rome lost political power, the Bishops of Rome asserted their direct line to God through St. Peter. In constrast, the Eastern church saw Ecumenical Councils as expressing God's final word on any subject.
Would someone with a knowledge of Greek verify my understanding of the words used by Rome: "On this Rock, I will build my church". My understanding is that the feminine case of 'rock' ('petra') is used. The feminine is used in 2 ways:1) address a woman, which not the case here; 2) address an idea. Therefore, Jesus' was referring to Peter's statement ("You are the Christ"), and not on Peter himself.

Scott wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Yes, that was a point that was often made by folks who studied the Byzantines - there was a separation as to what they believed religiously at times but never about who they thought..."

You are correct about the Greek. The 'petra' is referring to Peter's confession. On that belief, the church would begin and grow. The Roman Catholics believe that the church is built on Peter (petros), but that was not taught anywhere in the New Testament and is not supported by the Greek. I have attached a link, which gets a little technical in parts, which explains the Greek.

http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Petr...

Even though the monasteries of Mt Athos are not the focus of our reading until chapter 18, I didn't want to risk anyone missing the opportunity to watch the archived video of the 60 Minutes segment devoted to the Mt. Athos monasteries. Here's a link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?i...

The 60 Minutes crew was granted an almost unprecedented access to the Mt. Athos monasteries, including interviews with monks and abbots and views of priceless icons and other centuries old art and architectural wonders.

To wet your appetite with just a single detail that gives you an idea of how isolated these communities are from our modern world, they note that no woman has set foot on Mt. Athos for a thousand years! Monks are called to prayer by a monk tapping on a large board of ancient wood, a practice that antedates the widespread manufacture of bells.
Virtually nothing has changed here for centuries and we get to see much of what is usually hidden from the view of anyone besides the monks themselves.

I found Chapter 4 to be confusing since I lack the religious background to instantly get all the references made. I know the author is compacting 1000 years of history into a small space here, but I found the chapter to be slow going for me. Otherwise, I'm greatly enjoying the book. Now, a long diatribe on the political and nutritional sociology of bread. Feel free to stop reading here....

Re: bread related to food stamps, the reference to the dole in Gaius Julius's time might apply, but for Constantinople, remember that as the author writes, the bronze bread tokens were related only to location of one's house, and even then subject to proof via documentation. Really a brilliant method of creating a sense of civics and community from the dust itself. Later it's written that money was also required, but really one has to wonder how much it would actually cost in cheap flours to do the same for a major metro area today. Not pocket change, to be sure, but if you were to exchange some public moneys spend on feeding the poor/homeless on flour (or flour credit/tax credit) for bakeries in the metro area so they would make a cheap (whole grain?) bread that people with appropriate ID as city residents plus the same for homeless or otherwise disadvantaged people, it might make for an interesting impact for both the bread consumers as well as the bakeries, which always struggle. I know my parents used to work for the Salvation Army many years ago, and one of the more common and tragic problems was people with food stamps lacking the nutrition/survival skills to pick calorie/nutrition dense foods, often times returning with a story of them pleading with people to buy bread and lunchmeat and such instead of marshmallows the like.

So I guess I wish my communities gave me bread and circuses too.

Will, I think that is a great suggestion; giving folks whole grain bread is a wonderful idea. Civil and community pride (I wonder what happened to it). It may have died 1000 years ago in Constantinople.

I am sorry that you found chapter four slow going. But glad you are enjoying the book.

I would need gluten-free bread in order to survive. Will that be supplied?

Emily, I see no problem with that (smile).

During the Depression, instead of giving people food stamps, the government set up soup kitchens where nutrioius food was served. That makes more sense than giving people money to buy food themselves, but you do have to swallow your pride tostand in line. Most people I know would rather waste gas driving alone than wait for a bus or train.

Scott you make some great points.

I just finished Chapter 4. As for Chapter 3, I too found the free bread for those living in Constantanople quite interesting. Not only are there the social issues that have been discussed, as this obviously was not viewed as a handout. But also, the logistics had to be amazing. The grain needed to be grown, transported, and stored. Then brought into the city, milled, baked, and distributed. It had to have been an amazing and efficient system. And they needed to have fall backs for bad crops or other disasters. Truely ahead of its time.

I was also fascinated to learn that the coronation rituals we've come to know in Western Europe originated in the Byzantium. I had never thought about their history, but had always assumed it was tied to the Roman popes.

Chapter 4 was tough for me. There was a lot of church history to cover in a few short pages, as others have noted. I didn't mind that it was a crash course, but I really struggled to identify the key points the author wanted us to pick up in the chapter. I hope it will become more clear as we get deeper in the book.

Karolyn,

I agree with you about the Church history, but I also think some of the way it is presented masks the real debate back then, which we take as long over, about whether Jesus Christ was God, or a man, or a man with a little bit of the divine in him. This debate is crucial, as it is one of the key things that makes Islam different from us.

I have to agree with you Laurence. It is something you take for granted these days, but to actually debate them, it must have been quite a site to see. It is nothing like to be on the "ground floor" of a religion.

Laurence wrote: "Karolyn,

I agree with you about the Church history, but I also think some of the way it is presented masks the real debate back then, which we take as long over, about whether Jesus Christ was God..."

Laurance, how is this debate one of the key differences between Christianity and Islam?

Laurence - You make a great point. It's easy to forget how much of what we consider setteled doctrine was hotly debated at the time.

Scott wrote: "Laurence wrote: "Karolyn,

I agree with you about the Church history, but I also think some of the way it is presented masks the real debate back then, which we take as long over, about whether J..."

Islam agrees with much of the old testament, venerates the Jewish prophets and claims descent from Abraham.

They also claim that Jesus was a man, a prophet, but not God. Indeed, their prayer meetings, bowing down low, and the fact that their women often wear a veil, are closer to how Orthodox Christiaity would have been practiced in those lands in the 7th century than to how it is practiced in most of the world these days.

Once again, it takes me longer to read through all of these excellent comments than it did to read the chapters! What a great group discussing this book.

On Chapter 3, I agree with Karolyn that the logistics of the free-bread-for-living-here were just amazing. The only thing similar that came to my mind was the residents of Alaska, who basically get paid to live there. It is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (see http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/). My understanding is that Alaska has invested their oil revenues and every year the interest is divided up among the residents. I wonder if Alaskans would be happier with free bread and entertainment, hee hee.

Also, it was while I was reading Chapter 3 that I realized a big part of my confusion in this book is the whole definitions thing. We think of this block of space and time as "Byzantium", but they thought of themselves as "Romans". And since I already have a different view of Romans, the Byzantiums come across as upstarts. But it is obvious they weren't. If I even knew more about western history during the given centuries, I'd probably understand more of the book. :)

The whole section about the Blues and the Greens was fascinating. And we think our sports/entertainment stars are too rich and powerful. Sounds like it was the same back then.

There are so many little comments in the book that surely over-summarize some interesting story. Such as this one from page 29, "assassins... disguised themselves as members of the choir due to sing in the Christmas celebrations, and murdered Leo V." Surely there is more to that story!

Thoughts on Chapter 4:

The whole pro/con Arius thing starts to make me think I'm watching a tennis match right from the sideline--first looking right, then left, then right, then....

I was hoping this chapter would help me understand the difference between Greek Orthodox and Catholic. I guess it did help, but not as much as I was hoping for. As with other topics, I think Herrin is having to assume her readers know stuff that I don't happen to know. So, I learned a lot, but it all still seems fuzzy to me. Someday I'll have to go and read those books that Marjorie suggested and then it'll all make sense. (As much as conflicting religious beliefs ever make sense, of course...)

I loved the sentence on page 41: "When Marina cut off her hair and put on a man's tunic, she became Marinos and joined a monastery, where she was accused of fathering a child." I'm sure it wasn't funny at the time, but the irony cracks me up. By the way, is Marina someone that everyone else knows? Because Herrin brings her up as if she is a well-known individual. Maybe she was mentioned earlier in the book and I missed it?

There are a lot of relics mentioned in this chapter. In general, are they still revered by people today? For example, on page 43, Herrin says "a monastic community cherished its relic, the head of St. John the Baptist." First of all, it sounds really disgusting to my 21st century mind for people to honor the head of someone who died centuries earlier. Are these same relics still around today?

They had Lenin preserved and on display for all those years, so I suppose it still happens from time to time.

Holy relics are still to be found in churches built in the 20thC. In my church, which is Episcopal (Church of England), the main altar is embedded with a sliver of wood associated with an English saint. There is also an alcove with a statue of the Virgin and Child with candles to light for prayer. Mind you, this is part of a denomination which has gay bishops.

Bryan wrote: "They had Lenin preserved and on display for all those years, so I suppose it still happens from time to time."

In a conversation with an Orthodox Christian, he told me about a saint who was martyred while defending his church from the Turks. Every year, monks check on his body, and change his slippers because they worn out from walking.

Great discussion here!

Although I continue to find Herrin's book lively and entertaining, once I hit Chapter 4, I began to realize that, good an author as she is, she can't do the impossible. In condensing over 1000 years of history, plus tons of nuanced theological debate, into one relatively short chapter, I'm afraid she lead us to jump to a few inaccurate conclusions.

One: that the Orthodox Church follows the teachings of the "oecumenical councils" but the Catholic Church does not. Catholics recite the Nicene Creed (as in "from Nicea") every week at Mass (albeit with that troublesome filioque). And general church councils, in the Catholic world, are still called "ecumenical councils." (Most places I see it written have dropped that unsounded initial "o.") Hence, the Second Vatican Council was an "ecumenical council."

Another: that it wasn't until Nicea that Christians believed that Jesus was God. Nicea had to clarify that teaching vis-a-vis a heresy that said Jesus was not God, but a really, really super creature. Earlier councils had to define the teaching versus heresies that said Jesus was God just pretending to be human. The full teaching, that Jesus is both fully God and fully human, and that God is one, yet manifested (probably that word is not right - I'm no theologian!) in three "persons," is pretty hard to wrap one's head around. No wonder various heresies arose/keep arising, with positions that are more easily comprehended!

All this may be pretty soporific stuff for those looking on from the sidelines; since I'm a fairly engaged Catholic (and just this fall attended a 2-day intro presentation on the earliest ecumenical councils, believe it or not!) the details seem more significant to me. But, more pertinent to our discussion of the book in general, after reading this chapter I began to wonder what other not-quite-right ideas I'm picking up from this book, not because Herrin is misstating things, but because my brain is doing its own filling-in of the spaces between those things she was able to include.

Not to criticize Herrin: she took on a Herculean task and accomplished it gracefully!

Scott wrote: "In a conversation with an Orthodox Christian, he told me about a saint who was martyred while defending his church from the Turks. Every year, monks check on his body, and change his slippers because they worn out from walking."

LOL

Elizabeth S. wrote: "There are a lot of relics mentioned in this chapter. In general, are they still revered by people today? For example, on page 43, Herrin says "a monastic community cherished its relic, the head of St. John the Baptist." First of all, it sounds really disgusting to my 21st century mind for people to honor the head of someone who died centuries earlier. Are these same relics still around today? "

Regarding the head of John the Baptist, Umayyad Mosque in Damascus claims to have it interred in its shrine, while there is also in Rome another shrine holding the same relic. However, Amiens Cathedral also claimed that it had in possession the above said head, brought from Constantinople after the crusaders' sack of the city. There are probably other claims that I do not know of.
I doubt that any of those institutions is really willing to "prove" which one (presuming that shrines really have human heads inside) actually belongs to John the Baptist (I do not really know how that would be possible, maybe by origin, age, type of wound...). I personally do not care much for the relics of any person, saint or not, as what actually matters is your faith (that's my opinion...), but there are still many believers who do care, and the "losers" in this case might lose with that not only their credibility, but the considerable number of pilgrims.

Zeljka, that "head of John the Baptist" made me wonder, too. And you are right, a relic of that type certainly would be a draw (for those who believe the claim, anyway!)

A few years ago, I was in Cologne and visited its breathtaking cathedral (a draw by itself!). It has a couple of magnificent reliquaries, one of which holds the remains of all 3 Magi and the other the remains of the seven martyred sons featured in the book of Maccabees. Supposedly. The flood of pilgrims in the Middle Ages required the construction of many smaller churches more or less ringing the cathedral. (My guess is that these relics were also Crusade booty, but I don't know.)

Bryan wrote: "They had Lenin preserved and on display for all those years, so I suppose it still happens from time to time."

Good point. It isn't just one particular group or religion that does that kind of thing.

What interesting examples of relics, both now and then. Thanks especially to Zeljika for the info on John the Baptist's head(s). (How many heads could the poor man have had, anyway?) Back in our discussion of A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, stuff about relics came up periodically. I was trying to find the reference to someone who was skeptical about relics and said something like, "That might be the leg-bone of a [insert lowly trade here] person for all I know."

Instead I thought this list of relics was interesting. These are the ones that Charles V of France had in his collection: "the piece of Moses' rod, the top of John the Baptist's head, the flask of Virgin's milk, Christ's swaddling clothes, and bits and pieces of various instruments of the crucifixion including the crown of thorns and a fragment of the True Cross" (page 237-238). Wow.

by Barbara W. Tuchman

Mary Ellen wrote: "Great discussion here!

Although I continue to find Herrin's book lively and entertaining, once I hit Chapter 4, I began to realize that, good an author as she is, she can't do the impossible. In ..."

Good points, Mary Ellen. I'm no Catholic, but I was wondering how the Nicean Crede from the Council of Nicea fit into all this. As you say, there is just too much to condense. Plus, as a Christian, I agree that the councils were just setting things right after people were getting confused by how godly Jesus Christ was, rather than originating the idea. (Wow, my sentence there is almost as confusing the whole trinity debate itself!)

I've experienced this with other books I've read, too, when stuff that I know pretty well gets glossed over, I wonder if I'm getting the right impression on stuff that I don't know well. I guess we have to use grains of salt in everything we read, huh.

Mary Ellen wrote: "A few years ago, I was in Cologne..."

Interesting, really - cathedral and its smaller churches in vicinity, and the background story of them - it seems really remarkable, one day I would love to see it myself. Not for relics though :-)

Elizabeth S wrote: "These are the ones that Charles V of France had in his collection..."

Amazing list, indeed! One must ask himself how disturbingly great were fears that occupied Charles V's mind, if he needed so many things to protect himself from evil, if that was why he kept so many of them in his possession... Not to mention that he then actually believed all those things are for real - or he didn't dare to believe otherwise for sake of other people in his household :-)

Elizabeth S wrote: "I agree that the councils were just setting things right after people were getting confused..."

Definitely agree with both, I guess not only common people but the priests also probably needed clarifications, so as to correctly, according to the official conclusions after debates at those councils, teach and promote their faith to the people.

The relics were necessary to be able to collect enough tithes and indulgences to build the churches and cathedrals, too. (It wasn't just about alleviating time in purgatory.) Sometimes the relics themselves attracted people who paid to see or touch them. This really helped in Northern Europe (Cologne). This also provided the priests with funds so they could send money to Rome and up their standing. It got a bit over-done and the Protestant Reformation pretty well did away with the practice in the new churches and religions while the reformers toned it down in the Roman Catholic Church.

what a lovely animated discussion..I got specifically inspired by this particular thread and ordered the book. Let's see if it arrives on time.

Great, Aparajita, glad you could join us, and take it at our own pace, you have plenty of time.

Guys, a tremendous discussion thread.

I found it interesting...again the power of ideas and faith behind the icons. The city is under siege, losing battles against the Muslims, people lost faith in the icons and they came down. Then came back into vogue once victories came, being thankful, etc.

Out with the old, in with the new. Humanity certainly is fickle. It is like women's hems going up or down considering economic and other factors. You have to scratch your head and wonder what were they thinking.

Nice analogy, Bentley. Thanks.

Wow what a great discussion. Thanks everyone reading through your posts has certainly helped clarify a lot or at least some of the confusions I had after reading chapter 4.

Bryan a big thanks for your definition of 'The Arius Heresy' it was a big help to me.

Marjorie thanks for your recommendation of the John Julius Norwich book. After reading chapter 4 I realise how poor my knowledge of the founding of the Christian Church and how it developed is.

On the bread and circus's front I don't agree that Constantine was being alturistic in providing these things for the populace. Bread was given in exchange for a token, tokens were given to those who built houses in the city. Constantine was interested in the growth of Constantinople and attracting the right people to settle there. If you had the capacity to build a house it was an indication that you would help the city develop and thrive.

"The Emperor stimulated private building by promising householders gifts of land from the Imperial estates in Asiana and Pontica, and on 18 May 332 he announced that, as in Rome, free distributions of food would be made to the citizens. At the time the amount is said to have been 80,000 rations a day, doled out from 117 distribution points around the city.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant...

Karen

John Julius Norwich

Interesting note and comments about the bread and circus rationale and the link Karen. Glad you are enjoying the discussion and previous comments.

Keep posting as you move along; we are glad and eager to read your comments and posts.