Icelandic Folklore

The witches of yesterday's post were just a small part of the rich folklore found in Icelandic literature and history. Because Iceland was so isolated geographically, Christianity came to it late and did not get as strong a hold on culture as in other European countries. Consequently, Iceland in modern times still retains strong vestiges (if that is not an oxymoron) of its supernatural history.

Magic (galdur or galdrar) could be good or bad and implemented through the use of galdrastafir (sigils, symbols), runes, or through words. Spells were very elaborate and well thought out. For instance, you could get a ghost under your power with a spell that caused a corpse to rise from its grave. As it did so, you had to reach down and strangle it until it asked you to stop. At that point you had a ghost under your control. You had to ask it its age, however, and if it were older than 14 or 15, you had to send it back to its grave, because a ghost older than that could be too powerful to keep under your control.*

Tales of galdrar are usually about human practitioners. Iceland is full of tales and beliefs about non-human beings. There are two terms for most of them: the older álfar (elf people) and the later term huldufólk (hidden people). These beings inhabit the land (largely) invisibly, but their dwellings (among rocks) and their well-traveled paths are known. Disturbing their homes is a grave offense, and they will seek revenge. Modern-day  Iceland will alter construction projects to avoid damaging rocks or cliffs lest the hidden folk be offended.

South of Reykjavik, in the town of Kopavogur, there is an elf hill, Álfhóll, a quite small area with some large boulders that is in an ideal spot to put a road through. Three attempts to build a road have failed.

The first effort was abandoned when funding ran out just before blasting could begin. A decade later, a second attempt was thwarted when heavy equipment and machinery repeatedly broke down without explanation. In the 1990s, a third attempt was made to remove part of the hill for road repairs, but powerful drills broke apart without even leaving a mark on the rock! [link]

Álfhóll is now considered a protected site, and the road squeezes around it.

Interactions between humans and álfar could be pleasant. The illustration is of an altar cloth in the National Museum of Iceland. This cloth was supposedly given to a human woman by an elf woman who was grateful for assistance in childbirth. It is unique as an artifact related to elf folklore.

Let's expand our look at elf people to the rest of Europe tomorrow.

*Some of what I'm sharing is from a TV series called Supernatural Iceland.

Whale Laws & Lore

In the sixth season of the TV show Vikings, a whale has washed up on shore. One character, Kjetill, claims it for his own. Others insist that the bounty be shared—it was an enormous source of food and materials—but Kjetill refuses, and even kills those who want to share it. Unlikely?

Not really. Both Icelandic tales Grettissaga (the Saga of Grettir) and Fóstbræðrasaga (the Saga of the Sworn Brothers) relate the incident of a long-lasting feud between two families when the rights to a beached whale turns to a lasting feud between groups.

The situation would be easily resolved if the ownership of the beach itself were not in dispute. Iceland at the time was a newly inhabited country and land rights were not always firmly established. Without having community agreement as to the rightful owner of the land on which a resource was found, conflict could easily arise.

I also promised in yesterday's post to discuss the "downside" of whale lore. I was referring to the other part that whales played in the past: as frightening supernatural creatures. In Friðþjófssaga (the Saga of Friðþjóf), Friðþjóf and his crew are at sea and trying to reach land. They are hindered by a whale, but not just any whale. This whale has two witches riding its back, sent to harass Friðþjóf by an evil king who is his enemy.

The witches should not surprise us. Every European culture (and others) have supernatural creatures and magic practitioners in their lore. Tomorrow let's look at some of the supernatural lore peculiar to Iceland.

Icelandic Whaling

Speaking of medieval whaling, let's talk about Iceland's approach. As an island in the North Atlantic—with a relatively small strip of arable land around the coast—a major source of food was, of course, the sea.

There is a story from the late 14th century about Ólafur, who went fishing off the Iceland coast and encountered a steypireydur, a blue whale. Ólafur stabbed his spear deep into its flesh, hoping the wounded beast would wind up on shore where Ólafur could claim the body.

Unfortunately for Ólafur, the whale survived enough to swim 930 miles and beach itself on the shore. It was found by a chieftain and his men, who started butchering the animal for food.

How much food did it yield? That's the great thing about the blue whale, the largest of the whales; indeed, the largest animal that ever lived on Earth (that we know of). Using sheep as a unit of measurement—a chief source of meat in Iceland—the blue whale could yield 3000 lambs' worth of meat.

How do we know that the whale in Greenland was the whale stabbed off the coast of Iceland by Ólafur? By Icelandic law, the whale killed by your hand was your prize, and so whalers would place a unique mark on the metal blade of their spears. The Greenland group found Ólafur's spear and mark during their butchering, but realizing that there was no way to reunite Ólafur and his quarry, they happily enjoyed their bounty. (The illustration is a 1560 depiction by Conrad Gesner.)

Icelandic texts try to be accurate about the real world, although they can add more fantastical elements. There was an attitude about blue whales that they were "friendly" and "peaceful," but that their size intimidated other whales that were more dangerous and "evil." The common advice was to keep your boat near a blue whale for safety (which makes Ólafur's attack a little sad).

But whales were so important to the Icelandic economy that laws were developed about hunting them:

A whale’s size, how it died, and who owned the property where it beached all determined who got a share of the whale meat. Portioning also depended on who secured it to the shore; if an Icelander saw a dead whale floating in the sea, they were legally obligated to find a way to tether it to land. And hunters not only marked their spears with their signature emblem, they also registered those emblems with the government, improving the chances that they could claim their lawful share of any whale they speared. [source]

So what was it like if there was a dispute over a whale carcass? And what was the downside of whale lore? Let's check these scenarios out tomorrow. 

Whaling in the Middle Ages

Yesterday's post referred to Ohthere of Hålogaland supporting himself partially through whaling. Whaling centuries ago should not be a shocking idea: evidence for whaling in Alaska has been found dating to 1000BCE, and there are neolithic depictions in Korea that may be about whaling as far back as 6000BCE.

Rather than going out into the open sea to catch a large animal, a common method was to take several small boats away from a shore where it was known that whales and dolphins consort, then forming a barrier in an attempt to drive them to beach themselves on shore.

Another method that presents less danger to sailors is to use a drogue, a floating object that is attached to a harpoon by a rope. If the harpoon makes solid contact with a whale, the buoyancy of the drogue makes it difficult for the animal to descend and tires it out so that the sailors can catch up with it. Melville's Moby Dick refers to druggs for this purpose.

Petroglyphs in Korea show boats surrounding sperm whales and humpback whales, but most whaling tackled smaller prey (see relative sizes here). Large whales were looked on to the medieval mind as scary and dangerous, but the smaller ones were gladly hunted for food and materials. One inventory of whales from the Middle Ages mentions the pilot whale (between five and ten meters long) as a popular target for its relatively small size and the ability to drive it into shore. Minke whales were also valuable due to their smaller size.

Smaller whales, porpoises, and dolphins that were driven to beach themselves were then clubbed or knifed. The body parts were divided equally among the participants. Some animals wound up on shore on their own and a call would go out to gather and finish it off (if it were still alive) and share the spoils before they spoiled.

The Dominicans Vincent of Beauvais (c.1190 - 1264) and Bishop Albertus Magnus (c.1200 - 1280) wrote of observing whaling; they both described it as a group project. Bede (672 - 735) also mentions the capture of whales.

Iceland had some very strict laws about whaling, which we will talk about tomorrow.

Ohthere of Hålogaland

When King Alfred the Great asked for an Anglo-Saxon translation of Orosius' Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, or "Seven Books of History Against the Pagans," he was fine with adding things that he thought worthy. One was the travels of Wulfstan of Hedeby, asked by Alfred to open up trade with northern Europe. The other was the account of the travels of Ohthere of Hålogaland.

Ohthere claimed that he lived in the extreme north of Norway. Hålogaland has been identified with the far north, today called Nord-Norge. He seems to have been quite wealthy, claiming to own a herd of 600 reindeer, and also making his money from whaling, walrus-hunting, and tribute from Lapps.

According to the account tacked onto Orosius:

Ohthere told his lord, King Alfred, that he lived northernmost of all the Northmen. He said that he lived in the north of the country by the West Sea. He said though the land stretches a long way north from there, yet it is completely unpopulated except for a few places here and there, where Finnas [Sami] camp, hunting in winter and fishing by the sea in summer. [source]

He was some kind of leader who received tribute from the Lapps:

That tribute consists in animal skins, bird feathers, whalebone and in ship's ropes made from the hide of whales and seals.  Each one pays according to his rank.  The noblest must pay fifteen marten skins, and five reindeer, and one bear skin, and ten ambers of feathers, and a bear, or otter-skin coat, and two ship's ropes, both to be sixty ells long, one to be made of whale's hide, the other of seal's. [source]

He also refers to the usefulness of walrus bones and that he brought some to give to Alfred.

He traveled widely, sometimes just for the sheer joy of discovery it seems. He describes sailing up the coast of Norway and going "over the top" and south again to what is called the White Sea, finding wasteland. At so me point he traveled to England, where he met Alfred. He offers the earliest details in England of what the Scandinavian countries were like.  In fact, his account is the earliest use we know of the term "Norway" (norðweg), as well as the name "Denmark" (dena mearc).

Ohthere's account brings up a question I never thought of: if they hunted whales in the Middle Ages, how did they go about it? How dangerous was it in their smaller ships? Tomorrow let's talk about the feasibility of whaling in the Middle Ages.

Orosius in the Middle Ages

The History written by Paulus Orosius in the 5th century carried influence for a thousand years afterward:

"The exceptionality of the Historiae is indicated by its incredibly rich and diverse reception over the subsequent centuries. The work became the standard point of reference on antiquity for the medieval and early modern world. It had an enormous impact of the historiography of later centuries, from Bede and Otto of Freising, to Petrarch and Dante, to Edward Gibbon.

At least two hundred and seventy-five manuscripts survive, the oldest dating to the sixth century, and the work was translated into Old English, Arabic, Aragonese, and Castilian prior to the modern period." [source]

That statement comes from a report on a three-day conference at the University of London in May 2022 with a score of scholarly presentations on Orosius' effect on the centuries that followed

One of the first laps in its progress came during the reign of Alfred the Great (849 - 899) of England. Alfred was a promoter of education and literacy, and wanted important works translated into Anglo-Saxon/Old English for his own (and others) pleasure.

We have two Old English manuscripts of the History, from the 10th and the 11th centuries, as well as some fragments. This version differs from the Latin original in that it was expanded with descriptions of Germania, Scandinavia, and the Baltic region, with a very detailed verbal map, for example:

To the west of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and Frisia. To the north-west is the region called Anglia and Silland and part of the land of the Danes. To the north of them are the Abodriti, and to the north-east the Wilti who are called Havolans. To the east is the territory of the Wends who are called the Siusli. To the south-east, some distance away, is Moravia. The Moravians have to their west the Thuringians ...

It makes sense that a king with more ties to Northern Europe than a Mediterranean author would want an expanded version that covers areas significant to his kingdom. Two travelers familiar to this time period—Ohthere and Wulfstan of Hedeby (sent by Alfred to Prussia to open up trade)—have their travel narratives added to Orosius as well during Alfred's time.

Let's learn more about Ohthere tomorrow.

(The illustration is of a carpet page from a 7th century manuscript of the History. It is the earliest known carpet page of an English manuscript.)

History Against the Pagans

Orosius wrote an influential book on the history of the world, Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, or "Seven Books of History Against the Pagans." The aim was to show how Christianity had made the world better. It was influenced by talks he had with Augustine of Hippo, whom he visited more than once. The opening shows Augustine's influence in its writing:

I have obeyed your instructions, blessed Augustine, and may my achievement match my good intentions.

... 

You bade me reply to the empty chatter and perversity of those who, aliens to the City of God*, are called "pagans" [pagani] because they come from the countryside [ex pagis] and the crossroads of the rural districts, or "heathen" because of their knowledge of earthly matters. Although these people do not seek out the future and moreover either forget or know nothing of the past, nevertheless they charge that the present times are unusually beset with calamities for the sole reason that men believe in Christ and worship God while idols are increasingly neglected.

He decided to start his history from "the beginning of man's misery from the beginning of his sin":

From Adam, the first man, to Ninus, whom they call "The Great" and in whose time Abraham was born, 3,184 years elapsed, a period that all historians have either disregarded or have not known. But from Ninus, or from Abraham, to Caesar Augustus, that is, to the birth of Christ, which took place in the forty-second year of Caesar's rule, when, on the conclusion of peace with the Parthians, the gates of Janus were closed and wars ceased over all the world, there were 2,015 years.**

We started talking about Orosius a couple days ago because of his reference to Noah. Curiously, not only does Orosius refer to the Flood and the repopulating of the world in his first of seven books without mentioning Noah by name, he also offers evidence for the Flood with:

Other writers, too, have testified to this truth. Though ignorant of the past and even of the very Creator of the ages, they have nevertheless learned about the flood by drawing logical inferences from the evidence offered by stones which, encrusted with shells and often corroded by water, we are accustomed to see on far-away mountains.

Orosius' History was a valuable resource in the Middle Ages; we've seen it mentioned here and here. We'll talk more about its use tomorrow.

*City of God was Augustine's major work.

**I want to point out that Orosius' gives a longer period of time prior to Jesus' birth than that of James Ussher (1581 - 1656), the Archbishop of Armagh who calculated Creation as taking place on 22 October 4004 BCE)

Paulus Orosius

Yesterday's post mentioned one of the most influential books on history that formed the foundation of the medieval era's understanding of their world. The Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, or "Seven Books of History Against the Pagans," was written by Orosius and covers from Noah's Flood to his own time (he died c.420CE).

Paulus Orosius was born c.375/385CE, possibly in the Roman province that is now Portugal. Although we know almost nothing of his origin, he was well-known to and trusted by the intellectuals and theologians of his day.

He visited Augustine of Hippo and collaborated with him on City of God. He visited St. Jerome, bringing him letters from Augustine. He was entrusted with delivering the relics of St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr who was stoned by (among others) Saul of Tarsus. The illustration shows the extent of at least some of his travels. The blue line shows him going all the way to Palestine on behalf of Augustine, where he wanted to meet with Jerome and learn more about some of the groups there. He met with Priscillians to learn about their heretical practices, as well as Pelagians. Orosius presented Augustine's arguments against Pelagius during the Jerusalem Synod of 415, prompting Pelagius to say Et quis est mihi Augustinus? ("Who is Augustine to me?").

Another synod that same year, the Synod of Diospolis, saw Orosius as well as Pelagius branded as heretics. Orosius wrote a book in response, the Liber Apologeticus, defending his beliefs.

Returning westward, he brought letters from Jerome to Augustine. He stayed with Augustine awhile, and some think it is here his History was conceived. We will talk about Orosius and his history more tomorrow.

Noah and the Anglo-Saxons

Yesterday we talked about the medieval attitude toward Noah, mostly from the Jewish viewpoint. Another group that spent a significant amount of time writing about Noah was the Anglo-Saxons in England.

Part of the reason was that King Alfred the Great (reigned 871 - 899) wanted important Latin works translated into English to be more accessible to more people. One of those works was a history by Orosius, the Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, or "Seven Books of History Against the Pagans." Orosius starts with Noah's Flood and tells the story of history up to his own time (he died c.420CE).

His goal was to explain how Christianity improved the lives of humankind, and he gives details such as the dimensions of the Ark:

Adam lived for 930 years. Noah lived 600 years before the Flood and 350 winters after it and he was in the Ark for 40 days, he and his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their three wives. The Ark was 300 fathoms long, 50 fathoms wide, and 30 fathoms high. And his son Shem lived 630 years and his son Arfaxad lived 438 years. Then he begat a son called Heber. From him sprung forth the ‘Hebrew’ people.

Arfaxad was one of the sons of Shem, but the Anglo-Saxons were interested in a different descendant from Noah:

The story of Noah and his sons, and the building of the Ark, seems to have been popular in Anglo-Saxon England. Many of the surviving genealogical lists of Anglo-Saxon kings, for example, feature Noah prominently. The West Saxon Regnal List tell us that the line of the kings of Wessex, the dominant kingdom of Anglo-Saxon England from the late 9th century onwards, was descended from the Old Testament patriarch, through his fourth son Sceaf, said to have been born on the Ark itself. [link]

A list of West Saxon kings declares that they descended from Noah through his fourth [sic] son, Sceaf. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for year 855 supports this, at least in two versions (B & C), saying Sceaf was born in the Ark.

Outside of Anglo-Saxon sources, the Noah-Sceaf link is unknown. A reference to him in Snorri Sturluson is explained because the Prose Edda drew on English sources.

Of course, in Beowulf we hear the story of Scyld Scefing, "Shield, son of Scef," who floats ashore as a babe on a ship laden with treasure and becomes king of Denmark. The "genealogy" of the ark-born Sceaf in Orosius and the ship-delivered Scyld Scefing of Beowulf would be a good dissertation topic for someone in my field of study.

We, however, will go in a different direction and look at Paul Orosius and his history.

Noah in the Middle Ages

There is much more to be said about the story of Noah than an ark, a dove, and animals two-by-two (especially since the command was to collect more animals than just pairs). Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages looked more carefully at the story and asked themselves questions.

For example, we are told that Noah was "righteous in his generation." Did that mean that he was a good man in the context of that time but not necessarily by absolute standards? (Since the point of the Flood was to eliminate wicked humanity.) After all, he followed God's command to build an ark and collect animals, but could he have warned his neighbors to prepare for the coming Flood? Abraham prayed on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah, but Noah doesn't even talk to God; we never hear his voice; he just follows orders. Noah was the first vintner, a useful thing, but he got drunk and exposed himself. Was he an example of the "righteous man in a fur coat," one who neglects his neighbor while ensuring his own comfort?

One medieval commentator, Rashi, claimed that the building of the ark took 120 years, and that Noah stretched it out to give people time to repent. Rashi also said that the name "Noah" itself supports this, because it means "This one will comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which come from the ground that the Lord had cursed."

The Jewish Encyclopedia points out that there are two different stories of Noah. In one he is the "hero of the flood," in the other he is the savior of mankind who plants the first vineyard. These are two very different anecdotes, and could just as easily have been two different characters.

Adam is described as the first farmer, but farming did not die out with the Flood. It was not necessary for the creation of wine-making to happen post-Flood, so why attach the development to Noah? Was it solely to have his son Ham enter and see his father naked so that Ham could be cursed and explain other human beings in the world who were "cursed"?

Medieval Christianity saw Noah's three sons as the fathers of the peoples in different continents:  Japheth/Europe, Shem/Asia, and Ham/Africa. Ham's curse was intended to explain the dark skins of the African people, and was used as a justification for slavery. All of this was upended after the discovery of animals and people across the Atlantic after 1492, as you can imagine. Even Isaac Newton, writing in the 18th century, saw Noah and his sons as the ancestors of humanity across the world.

There was a medieval group that spent a lot of time on the builder of the ark; tomorrow we'll look at the Anglo-Saxon fascination with Noah.

Zoroastrianism

Over 600 years before the birth of Jesus, who went on at the age of 30 to challenge the status quo of his faith and developed a major religion based on his teachings after being recognized by a preacher on the banks of a river, a Persian reformer at the age of 30 had a revelation by the banks of a river and challenged the status quo of his faith, going on to preach and develop what became the major religion of his people.

Details about Zoroaster (real name Zarathushtra Spitama) have been debated and analyzed for centuries, but the sparse and vague facts don't matter as much as his influence on that part of the world. The story as it exists today is that he became a priest at 15, left his parents at 20 to wander and preach, and at 30 saw a shining figure on a river bank who revealed himself as Vohu Manah (Good Purpose) and taught him about Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord). Zoroaster learned the concepts of Asha and Druj, Order and Deception. He then devoted his life to teaching about Asha.

Eventually receiving the patronage of a queen, he continued to spread his ideas until he died at the age of 77. One story says he was killed by a priest of the traditional Iranian religion while Zoroaster was performing a ceremony. Another story says a Turanian soldier killed him. There is also the belief that he died of old age.

The teaching of Zoroastrianism are in the Gathas, an account of conversations between Zoroaster and Ahura Mazda. In them we learn that Ahura Mazda has an enemy, Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit). Human beings have a choice between Asha and Druj, these two opposing forces being promoted by Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. (There is of course much more to it than that.)

The illustration above is of the Faravahar, a prominent symbol of Zoroastrianism, whose interpretation varies, but seems to be a representation of a person's spirit.

Zoroastrianism did not reach Western Europe, but it did interact with other subjects of this blog. The 10th Abbasid caliph, al-Mutawwakil ala Allah, did not follow the religious tolerance of his predecessor. In Kashmar there was an enormous cypress tree, supposedly 1400 years old, sacred to Zoroastrianism because it came from a. branch brought by Zoroaster from Paradise. al-Mutawwakil had it cut down to provide beams for his new palace. Despite protests, the destruction was carried out in 861CE. Zoroastrians might think that a curse was placed on the act, since al-Mutawwakil was assassinated by a soldier the night that the wood arrived via river and never saw the wood he wanted so desperately.

The 6th century CE saw clashes between Zoroastrianism and the Nestorian Church that was pushing to the East because it was so thoroughly rejected by the West. The dualistic nature of Zoroastrianism—that Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were equally powerful forces—clashed with the Christian view that God was omnipotent.

As Muslim caliphates conquered the lands where Zoroastrians practiced, there was slow pressure to convert, despite being given dhimmi ("protected") status as a minority.

A 17th-century Jesuit scholar named Athanasius Kircher reconciled Zoroastrianism with the Bible by identifying Zoroaster with Noah's son Ham. In the current era, Zoroastrians number fewer than 150,000, and are found among Indian Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians.

This post got me thinking about Noah and Ham. Ham was used to explain and (sadly) to dehumanize dark-skinned people. But what did the Middle Ages make of the story of Noah? On the one hand he was the father of humanity, but first he oversaw its destruction. Was that a problem? Hmmm.

Nestorianism in the East

The ideas put forth by Nestorius survived him and his condemnation as a heretic, mostly in the East. Those who disagreed with the Council of Ephesus adhered to the idea of Jesus having both a divine and a human nature with a connection between them, not that he was one or the other.

The Roman and Byzantine authorities saw Jesus as primarily divine, and when the Byzantine Emperor Zeno shut down a school in Mesopotamia for teaching Nestorian ideas, the school simply re-opened as the School of Nisibis in Persia. This brought many people to the area who believed in Nestorianism.

This Persian Nestorian Church began to expand, but not to the West where they would be opposed by the churches that followed Rome. The 6th century saw schisms started by clashes with Zoroastrianism, but the Nestorians came out even stronger.

Certain parts of the eastern church became known as the Nestorian Church. Nestorians were known in the Mongol court, and it was said that Nestorians provided the West with secrets of silk. 

Missions to the Arabian Peninsula and India created dioceses there. India already had Christianity presumably due to St. Thomas. The rumors of a large Christian population in far-off places gave rise to the myth of Prester John. A 6th-century manuscript mentions Persian Christins living in Sri Lanka, and a carved stone cross in a Sri Lankan column discovered in 1912 has been offered as proof of the presence of the Nestorian missions. In the Arabian Peninsula, Nestorians were declared dhimmi (protected persons) by the Rashidun Caliphate when it conquered that area.

The illustration above is of a Nestorian cross from a Beijing monastery dating to the Yuan Dynasty (1271 - 1368 CE), showing how far and how well-established the Nestorian Church became in the Far East.

Since this blog has never explained Zoroastrianism, I think that should be the next topic. See you tomorrow.

Nestorius of Constantinople

It is time to talk about Nestorianism, the man who started it, and the fact that even though it was declared heretical it lasted in areas uncontrolled by Rome.

Nestorius (c.386 - c.451) came out of Germanicia in Syria (now Turkey) and was educated in Antioch. He became a monk, and his preaching drew so much attention that the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II made him patriarch of Constantinople in 428. His appointment didn't last long.

How did that change of fortune happen so fast? There were two differing theological ideas in Constantinople about the nature of Jesus as both a god and a man. One side supported the idea of a Hypostatic Union, that the divine and the human were united as one being in the person of Jesus.

Nestorius thought differently, preaching that there was a connection between the two natures. He could not accept that the suffering that the human Jesus went through was experienced by the divine part of him. He was accused of saying there were two persons in one body and therefore that he was denying the Incarnation, that "God became Man."

Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, was vehemently opposed to Nestorius. Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine II in Rome, who told Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he did not recant. The Council of Ephesus condemned and deposed Nestorius (along with affirming the Immaculate Conception).

Cyril had forced the Council to convene hastily, and declared the condemnation before the patriarch of Antioch and eastern bishops had arrived. They were furious at being left out of the discussion, convened their own council, declared Cyril of Alexandria deposed, and then appealed to the emperor. Theodosius supported Nestorius, but knew he was sitting on a powder keg. He exiled both Nestorius and Cyril. Nestorius went to his original monastery in Antioch. Cyril eventually bribed his way back to Constantinople.

Followers of Nestorius were removed from the positions. Theodosius exiled Nestorius from Antioch to Egypt, within the diocese of the recently restored Cyril of Alexandria. Desert bandits attacked the monastery, injuring Nestorius.

Nestorianism did not die, however; in the East, it spread. We will look at that growth tomorrow.

Maximus the Confessor

The pull of a religious and contemplative life drew many men and women to it from many spheres. Maximus (c.580 - 662), for instance, was a civil servant and aide to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610 - 641) before deciding to embrace the monastic life. Educated in theology and philosophy—especially the works of commentators on Plato and Aristotle—his many writings influenced later writers like John Scotus Eriugena who were drawn to Neoplatonism.

By the age of 30 he had been promoted to the office of the Protoasekretis, a "first secretary" or head of the imperial notaries. His status and level of education suggests someone of noble birth. He chose, however, to leave what must have been a comfortable and lucrative life to join the monastery in Chrysopolis, across the Bosphorus from Constantinople. Eventually he became its abbot.

There was a major change in his life when the Persians invaded Anatolia. He fled to Carthage where he met Saint Sophronius and was introduced to the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. It was while here that a debate about the human versus divine nature of Jesus became intense. Maximus opposed the idea of Monothelitism. 

Monothelitism ("one will") had come up in the 600s in opposition to dyothelitism ("dual wills"), the doctrine that Jesus had two "wills": a divine aspect and a human aspect. Monothelitism was the opinion that he had one will, a single "energy." Maximus had a public debate in Carthage with a friend, Pyrrhus of Constantinople, who had been deposed as patriarch and supported Monothelitism. Maximus convinced his friend that Monothelitism was erroneous. He wrote a transcript of the debate.

Heraclius liked Monothelitism, but wrote to the pope in Rome to create a synod that would settle the matter. The disagreements over the exact nature—dual or otherwise—of Jesus raged for centuries. The turmoil caused by the debates caused Maximus to leave his monastery. He preached in Alexandria for six years, then Crete where he clashed with a bishop who was a proponent of Nestorianism, which said Jesus had two natures.

A Lateran Council in October 649 in Rome (attended by Maximus) condemned Monothelitism. Emperor Constans II—who tried to stop the controversy by simply declaring Monothelitism as the truth and forbade anyone from discussing it further—ordered Maximus and Pope Martin I arrested in 653. Martin died before he could be brought to Constantinople. Maximus was tried as a heretic in Constantinople in 658 because he refused to accept Monothelitism; he was exiled to North Africa. In 662 he was tried, again, convicted of heresy, and had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off. Sent to Georgia, he was thrown into prison where he died on 13 August 662. The details of his trials were handed down to us by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-81 declared Monothelitism heresy, and Maximus was posthumously exonerated.

If Nestorianism said Jesus had two natures, and Maximus was against Monothelitism which believed Jesus had one nature, why did Maximus argue with a Nestorian? Wouldn't they believe the same thing? Not necessarily. Tomorrow let's see what made Nestorianism also heresy.

The Division of Nature

John Scotus Eriugena (c.815 - c.877) was a philosopher, theologian, poet, and master of the palace school of Aachen under the Carolingians. Of his various works, the most impressive was an attempt to reconcile and synthesize all known philosophy up to his time.

De divisione naturae ("On the division of nature") is written in five books as a dialogue between a teacher and student. The title was put to it years later; John called it Periphyseon, from the Greek for "on natures." The intent is to lay out how the Creator is connected to his creation of man and the rest of Creation.

The master explains to the student that "Authority is the source of knowledge, but the reason of mankind is the norm by which all authority is judged." Their socratic dialogue aims to explain all of nature, which is his term for the whole of creation and all its divisions. The "divisions" of nature are:

1. Creating and not created.
2. Created and creating.
3. Created and not creating.
4. Not creating and not created.

Number one is God, who creates but was not created, being eternal. Second are the Platonic forms which are the templates for the objects we perceive. Third is the corporeal world of things that do not themselves create anything but come from the Platonic forms. Finally we have God again, into which all created things ultimately return. He derives this four-fold plan from Augustine's City of God.

Note that numbers one and four are both about God. We'll look at the reason for this division in a translation of his own words:

Let us then make an “analytical” or regressive collection of each of the two pairs of the four forms we have mentioned so as to bring them into a unity. The first, then, [and] fourth are one since they are understood of God [alone]. For He is the Principle of all things which have been created by Him, and the end of all things which seek Him so that in Him they may find their eternal and immutable rest. [link]

This enormous work influenced many theologians in the future. The Divisione and Eriugena's translation of a biography of St. Maximus the Confessor (also one of Eriugena's influences) influenced Bernard of Clairvaux. Hildegard of Bingen shows Eriugena's influence in her Ordo Virtutum ("Order of the Virtues") and the Scivias about her visions. Some see his influence on Nicholas of Cusa.

Bertrand Russell called him "the most astonishing person of the ninth century." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [link] states he "is the most significant Irish intellectual of the early monastic period. He is generally recognized to be both the outstanding philosopher (in terms of originality) of the Carolingian era and of the whole period of Latin philosophy stretching from Boethius to Anselm."

A late anecdote (with no support) by William of Malmesbury says that Eriugena later in life went to teach at Oxford and angered his students to the point where he was stabbed to death by their styluses. William, who edited some of Eriugena's works, also thought he was a heretic because he showed too much Greek influence rather than Latin.

I think we should go back a few centuries and meet Maximus the Confessor, who influenced Eriugena. See you tomorrow.