To get you in the spirit here's a shot I took of some of the actors in one of the York Mystery Plays a couple of years ago in England. Medieval mystery plays were a kind of outdoor mass entertainment, a way to teach religious stories to people outside the church itself, and a kind of advertisement for the local tradesmen (who sponsored the plays through groups called guilds).
 |
| Medieval actors at York Minster |
If you're interested in drama or medieval literature you might want to look up some of these plays in the Penguin edition, English Mystery Plays, which is available in the library.
17 comments:
good point!
Just a thought I had…In chapter one of this week’s reading (‘The Early Church’) it stated, “The urban poor found it easy to accept a savior (Christ) who had worked as a carpenter; had surrounded himself with fishermen, ex-prostitutes, and similar riffraff; had been crucified by the imperial authorities; and had promised salvation to all who followed him—free or slave, man or woman.” I see how that recommended him to the peasant population, but how did the emperors and upper classes come to take to it? Their class is portrayed, if anything, as the “bad guy”.
Yes - that's a great point Melanie. I doubt the conversion of the more wealthy and high status people was instant! And yet next week we'll find out that by later on in the medieval period, the church was a really high status thing. Did you get anything else from the reading that might suggests some possible answers? How about everyone else?
By the way - if someone lost an Oroton umbrella in this tute on Monday, I have it.
it works. Miracolo. Rod
My first attempt went into oblivion.
My impression of early Christianity is that there was no “bad guy”. In the readings, Hollister mentions the three “Latin Doctors”. It seems that during this time theologians endeavoured to assimilate pagan beliefs (i.e. Plato and Neo-Platonism) with Christian beliefs. At this time the ideology of good and evil was created within the Christian doctrines.
Well…apparently the Emperor Diocletian attempted to eradicate Christianity, but failed as the people’s support for it was too strong. Those who died because of their beliefs became martyrs to those whom lived and they stuck to their beliefs even more stubbornly and in the end it was the emperors who bowed to the popular faith, “The failure of Diocletian’s persecution to eradicate Christianity made it evident that the empire had little choice but to accommodate itself to this new religion.”
Great work everyone - excellent to see you popping up online. :-)
Right - so one possibility is that it was to do with sheer persistence and resilience. Other options?
PS - welcome Rod! Glad to see you got the login working!
So Kerry, it seems to me you're picking up on another of the streams of teaching that informed early Christians. What Melanie was pointing out (I think - Melanie, jump in here if I'm wrong!) is the stream that criticised the wealthy and powerful for their lifestyles (if you are familiar with the Bible, think of the story of the poor woman and her last penny and it's criticism of wealthy Pharisees), and seemed to praise the humble, outcast, and social underdog. Then there's another stream which says, it doesn't matter who you are, as long as you live the kind of live Jesus taught about, you can be welcome in heaven: this is the stream that you're thinking of, if I interpret it correctly.
I'd say Melanie's point is that if the lifestyles of the rich were a target of Christian criticism, it's kind of curious that the "rich and famous" decided to convert... and that the church itself became powerful and wealthy. It's a pretty big conundrum!
But as for good and evil - wow! big topic. Maybe we need to talk about that another time. I suspect it was already there, but the Christian philosophers gave it a new form...
Okay, I have one more idea :) Apparently Emperor Constantine (the first Christian Emperor) was celebrated as the “thirteenth apostle, the master of all the churches, the divinely chosen ruler…” Perhaps Constantine acknowledged that the majority of his subjects were of the Christian faith and therefore endeared himself to them by conforming to their faith. Not only did he gain their love and respect by becoming “one of them” but he also gained influence within the church (through donations and “official protection”) and, no doubt, his name would have be praised during services alongside God and Christ. He could no longer call himself a god, but he was the next best thing when it came to the new religion.
Of course, in later days the church became more and more powerful and thus the question “who was more powerful; the king or the pope?” But in the early days there would have been no question: the king was on top.
Or we could always give him the benefit of the doubt and say he had a religious experience.
I'm amazed at the co-operation of the men and women during the early stages of this time. The church instilled fear in everyone to get them to oblige, yet no one questioned it. Additionally, due to Christianity bringing structure into peoples every day life, it was comforting for them as well as fearful. I find it an intriguing mix
After reading a few pages of the Reader for this subject i realised i truely did not understand firstly the true size and scale of Rome, but also the huge downfall that it suffered and the horrible living conditions experiened during the mid 200s (such as poverty, huge inflation, 19 assasinations and constant fighting). I am curious though, why did the east areas of the roman area seem to survive so much longer than the west? Also I didn't really understand what this meant in the book: "... Greece had all fallen now by Roman authority, although Greece exerted such a dominating influence on Roman culture that Romans could express some doubt as to who had conquered whom." Is it basically stating that the Greek culture was a major input into Roman culture?
The East seemed better set up. They had more valuable items to trade such as silk, spices, jewels and grains. The East contained the bulk of the population and had been civilized for far longer than the West. There was no large-scale industries and no mass production in the West. The political structure of the West provinces disintegrated.
These are a few points I found in the reader as to why the eastern regions may have survived longer than the western regions. But they did say that this topic will probably never be solved.
As I read through Einhards: the life of charlemagn, I notice that Einhard portrays Charlemagne in such a heroic way; a great man. However, after most of his battles his coerced people into christianity and if they disobeyed, hed declare war again (or kill,torture them). I wonder if the people of the west also viewed Charlemagne in such a way. He doesnt sound very heroic to me. He did alot of conquering land and the renaissance broguth about educational change but his underlying method was force. With the saxons, he used "brutal coercion"...He definitely did alot for the church and their defense, however, he seems pretty scary to me. Did the people of his time think the same as Einhard?
Reading about the Carolingian era, I was struck by the speed at which Charlemagne set up his empire. Of course he didn't have a standing start and could count on the Merovingian base and the Pippinid era, which counted such a giant as Charles Martel. Nevertheless Charlemagne won a vast territory, set up feudal governance and culture and wed Church and State to preserve it. That legacy remained, but his empire disintegrated as fast as it was established. It makes one think about the Soviet empire that arose and foundered within the 20th Century with time to spare at either end.
Mappa Mundi was fascinating. It turns up on a few interesting Youtube sites. You can even buy your own Mappa Mundi in its full glory with the colors returned to the medieval original. A snip at about $1600.
Post a Comment