The article's claim about the Council of Vienne is incorrect: the Council was condemning the errors of the Beghards and Beguines, one of which errors was the claim that a woman's kiss was sinful [1]. Thus, the Council was in fact saying it was not sinful to kiss romantically.
This was common for the anathemas written at the time, it would list all the positions, and then at the end say “anyone who holds these let him be anathema” - basically a “not” applied to all of them.
I'm reading the Cambridge history of medieval europe and it observes quite frequently that people had literal real fears of the afterlife, and that the word-is-my-bond thing had some immediate currency. Popes were able to issue directions to kings and dukes, which required them to do things, and without Stalin's "where is the pope's army" reality, they accepted the direction. [I personally suspect that the ability of the pope to use religious fervour to call on OTHER kings and dukes for an army probably heavily influenced things, but it would be wrong to deny the religious aspect. Life was short and brutal, and there was no evident tolerance for athiesm, at least as recorded in this kind of history. It took the later rennaisance and reformation for aspects of roman/greek atheism to enter the conversation, and christians were just as likely as any other faith to deny truths in other written works and destroy them]
A belief that a kiss represented a bond, a contract, that the kiss itself was bound into the agreement, and represented a material part of the agreement does not surprise me. Nor, that it forms a bond of fealty, and to disrupt the ceremony required acceptance of a change in law.
Remember this is a time where at least for the nobility, to swear on oath you didn't do something was in some circumstances sufficient to be found not guilty. High status
people did embarrasingly public penance to get out of excommunication.
It is interesting to look at ancient history and realize that "your word is your bond" was a real thing. Even "bad" people would, usually, not be willing to break oaths that they had made. It is shocking, in today's world, to imagine people actually taking a promise or oath that seriously. If a politician breaks their word, we don't think anything of it since it is so commonplace. I can't even imagine a society where once someone had given their word about something you would completely trust them on that issue since breaking your word would be unthinkable. Can you imagine drawing a box on the ground and having a person give their word that they will not leave it and then they would literally die before leaving the box? I can't even imagine living in that sort of society. I mistrust every single person I meet on a daily basis. I simply can't fathom having trust in anyone's word.
The problem is you're fighting uphill against individually-rational behaviour. If you keep your word while everyone around you breaks theirs, you will feel like a sucker while they get ahead. Most people will think "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" after a few rounds of this.
But being known as an honest man is great. I remember reading an article years ago (my search-fu fails me, sorry) about a guy who stopped lying about everything, even little white lies. He did this first as a result of losing a bet, but later found that he really enjoyed the trust people put in his words and decided to keep going. OTOH, if you are known as someone whose word is his bond, that is unfortunately an exploitable vulnerability.
It is not clear to me how you rebuild this norm at a societal level.
As someone who has adopted a 0 tolerance policy for lying as a core principle, I’ve accepted that people will take advantage of my trust and that I will suffer because of it. Even if it only makes a small difference, I think it’s worth it. If anything, I hope it at least inspires my daughter.
there is an essay on this (available as a book) by sam harris that i really enjoyed; it changed my perspective on lying/the truth.
since, i have decided to abandon even "white lies" and i find it very freeing. in the long trail i think it makes life a lot simpler, even if situations arise where you feel as though you need to "spare someone's feelings," i've found that they're navigable in a considerate way that doesn't necessitate dishonesty.
The difference requires that you actually believe that supernatural will punish you and your family if you break that oath. Which has also other consequences - like your family being motivated to be very controlling over what they allow you to say or do in the fear it will have consequences on them.
Other consequence is assumption that if bad things (sickness, injury, fire, ...) happen, it is punishment for what X had done or not done. This leads to revenge toward other humans for unrelated sicknesses, injuries, fires, ... .
> There was no evident tolerance for athiesm, at least as recorded in this kind of history. It took the later rennaisance and reformation for aspects of roman/greek atheism to enter the conversation
I think it's worth pointing out here that Roman and Greek societies took religion incredibly seriously. Recall that one of the two charges leveled against Socrates was impiety; the Socrates of Plato's Apology goes to great lengths to refute this charge. Or that Cicero explicitly attributes the success of Rome to its successful practice of religion. Atheism basically doesn't exist in the ancient world.
Yes I was economical with the truth. I am probably continuing to play fast and loose with what I read, as a dilettante.
Other reading I have done recently[0] said the writings of the ancients which didn't directly inform christian thought, were not held in high esteem until quite late in the medieval world. That subsequently they became a source of non-theistically informed moral philosophy doesn't really apply.
The point at hand was that a non-theist basis for law and rule wasn't really applicable, And the leaders looked to religion to justify their acts. Did they really care about Arianism or Wanted to destroy the Visigoths over the holy book? I tend to think the more materialistic reasons of territory, lineage and wealth had a lot more to do with it.
Other reading I do of trade in the later medieval period strongly suggests a high degree of religious pragmatism before the reformation: People would trade with both the muslim and christian world, promiscuously as it suited them, and the kings would form treaties across the religious divide.
To literal truth, "across the religious divide" implies a basis of belief. I personally suspect most lip-service religion is morally athiesm-in-disguise, but I understand this is really my own view. The rise of athiesm in the modern world is the willingness of people to admit to it and I see this as analogous to the rise of visible homosexuality: It would be wrong to assume the underlying rate of homosexual desire in the past was radically different, people just hid it. I think they did the same with athiesm. Reading Marcus Aurelius was about as overt as it got.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a medievalist, so I won't try to opine too much on the workings of medieval society. That being said, I think the key difference here isn't between a theist/non-theist basis for rule and law, it's a difference between a conception of a god that is transcendental (a la Christianity), and a conception of (a bunch of) ancient Gods that are immanent (i.e. dwelling within the world). The way you interact with a transcendental god who you primarily know about from religious/philosophical texts is fundamentally different from the way you interact with an immanent god that you primarily know about from ritual practice. In the former case, rules and laws come from attempting to carry out the will of the divine as epitomized by philosophy and scripture. In the latter case, rules and laws and decisions (including decisions like going to war!) are made in concert with gods through the practices of ritual and divination. Is this the only input into the way that societies worked in the ancient world? Of course not. But I would argue the same is true of medieval societies - not everything was motivated by religion either.
I understood that was a cynical charge, raised because pretty much any intellectual could be accused of it. He had 'introduced new gods to the city' or some such. Basically by preying on old superstition, his enemies (who probably didn't give a flying whistle) used it to bring him down.
It's true that the charges were somewhat cynical in the sense that Socrates could have been charged with the same crimes 10 or 20 years earlier - it wasn't his beliefs that changed, it was the political circumstances. That being said, Plato's Apology makes it clear how seriously Socrates took this charge - proving his own piety was incredibly important.
I think it is more that they did not actually cared whether he did the anti-gods thing rather then they would not believe in gods. It was excuse, but not in the "we don't believe this could be done" sense.
“Reformation” is not a synonym for “secularization.” A common misunderstanding is that Europe was highly religious prior to the reformation and then the reformation tempered that religiosity. This is not true. Both the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Reformation heightened religiosity for a very long time.
Yes. This is absolutely true. But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world.
By the time we arrive at quakers, we're a long way down the path to utilitarianism and a pretty overt statement of the lack of need of a deity to live a good live. But this is not the reformation, or the counter-reformation, its the enlightenment.
I suppose my point was more about the enlightenment than anything else. Which is definedly NOT about the reformation, but stems from it: I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form.
I should add this is not a direct 'anti-scientism' accusation to the catholic church: The church was extremely receptive to scientific method and proof methods. It wasn't so into the democratic tendency that came with it. So I believe without the liberation inherent in the reformation (the liberation from widely held belief in the authority of the state and the church) we'd not be where we are.
The taking of oaths was a significant component of why people were outside the state process, and faith, inherent in the 39 articles: you couldn't swear alliegence to the crown of england without explicitly accepting its authority in religion. Neither catholics nor dissenters liked this. Perhaps this is the perpetuation of the belief in the importance of an Oath, from medieval times? (this was the blockage on catholic participation in government which persisted for years after the enlightenment had begun)
> But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world.
This is wildly different than what I'd wager most scholars would say. And I think limiting yourself to the english speaking world is such an enormous change in scope that it becomes almost meaningless to refer to it as "The Reformation." I'm not a historian, but my wife is. Her era is a little before the Reformation but she teaches a course on it. Religiosity both among protestants and catholics in both personal and institutional life increased for ages following the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. I do not believe that this is a controversial statement among scholars.
The Quakers cannot be taken to be representative of Christendom in Europe. They were the weirdos (as seen by the bulk of Europe) who fled to the New World in no small part because of the religious violence and persecution they faced in Europe.
> I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form.
Professional historians tend to hate counterfactual arguments because they cannot actually be attacked with evidence. This is the realm of lay speculation.
"The enlightenment as the victory of secular reasoning over religiosity" is also a statement that I think most scholars would have trouble with, but I'm less familiar with the field here since none of my historian friends actually work in this time frame in europe.
I made it halfway through the article but I couldn't stand it interpreting all instances of "kiss" as kiss on the mouth. Kisses on the cheek would just as well be written down as simply kisses.
[1] https://sensusfidelium.com/the-sources-of-catholic-dogma-the...