Ms. Andrea Solomon, Ms. Mary Edsall
Colloquium F2003x
Assignment #19 – Third Paper
13 December 1999
Authority
Isaac Newton is famous for saying that he was only great because he stood on the shoulders of giants, monumental scientists before him from Pythagoras to Galileo. This idea of human progress through incremental improvements is not limited only to natural science. From ancient times, writers and thinkers have advanced literature and philosophy by building upon or responding to the work that came before. Traditionally, the best way for a new author to establish his credentials as a serious entrant in western thought has been to reference earlier masters. This serves many purposes. First, it builds the credibility of the new author by demonstrating that he is familiar with the major milestones in his field. Second, a new argument can be substantially validated by showing (or pretending) that it was originally put forth by a credited writer. Finally, a new thinker can test potentially controversial ideas with less danger to himself by assigning them to earlier authors. Since the time of ancient Athens, students have speculated about how much of what Plato attributed to Socrates actually originated with Plato himself. During the Middle Ages, the highest source of authority were classical Greek and Roman authors. This continued through the Renaissance, and in addition, some medieval authors also became pillars of intellectual authority.
Many of the medieval and renaissance authors we have read this semester have augmented their own credibility by citing established sources. The best example, and the first person we read who employed this technique, is the 12th century Anglo-Norman bishop, John of Salisbury. His pragmatic political essay Policraticus describes how an ideal government and state should operate. His ideal world seems to be a combination of the classical values and institutions of ancient Rome and Greece fused with the morals of the Bible. As examples, he alternates between biblical references from Job and Moses and classical references from Homer and Cicero. His most important and useful reference, however, is an alleged letter from the Roman historian Plutarch to the Emperor Trajan. Salisbury was fortunate indeed that such a famous and influential writer as Plutarch shared his views on rulers and government. Assuming that Salisbury’s audience did not doubt the authenticity of his citation, it must have added tremendous credibility and legitimacy to his book. After centuries of political decline and instability, anything reminiscent of the Roman Empire would have had automatic soundness. Most modern readers, however, and perhaps even some during Salisbury’s own time, realize that such a letter never existed and was almost certainly invented by Salisbury himself. This is apparent because the statements that Salisbury attributes to Plutarch accord nicely with his Christian perspective but are quite anachronistic to Plutarch’s pagan worldview. Plutarch’s concern with “reverence to God” and his notion of Trajan succeeding purely by his great virtue are highly suspicious. Moreover, there are no other references, ancient or medieval, to Plutarch ever writing such a letter. (Edsall, Salisbury)
Although much of John of Salisbury’s book is built around a bogus document, Policraticus was nevertheless an influential success. This is because Salisbury had already established substantial political connections before he wrote it. In various places in his text, he describes his own close friendship to powerful statesmen such as Lord Adrian IV of Apulia (Salisbury 132). Having worked at the papal court in Rome, then as secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and finally as Bishop of Chartres, Salisbury already had ample real-world, practical experience. By quoting Plutarch and other classical sources, however, he gave himself theoretical credentials as well. Furthermore, by quoting a letter to the expansionist emperor Trajan, Salisbury is making a strong analogy to his intended reader, the expansionist King Henry II. Salisbury thus had much to gain by borrowing the credibility of Plutarch, with only the slight risk that it would be recognized as inauthentic. During the early 12th century there were known to be dozens or hundreds of classical texts which had not been discovered or translated yet, so proving that a document from antiquity did not exist would have been very difficult. Furthermore, he hedges even that risk by pretending to be liberally translating the document, an odd idea considering he’s writing in Latin and the letter from Plutarch would logically have been in Latin as well. Only two pages into his book, Salisbury writes: “I have sought to incorporate [Plutarch’s letter] in such a way as to reproduce the outlines of its meaning rather than its actual words” (66). He goes on to insult anyone who might doubt the authenticity of his source: “One who follows everything in the text syllable-by-syllable is a servile interpreter who aims to express the appearance rather than the essence of an author” (67, emphasis added). I imagine that someone who makes up a completely fictitious letter to give himself more credibility knows quite a bit more about appearances than essence. Fortunately, one thing that a politically savvy statesman such as John of Salisbury would have been skilled at is maintaining appearances.
Another influential medieval thinker who relied on classical references was 13th century theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, unlike Salisbury, had no political experience of his own to draw upon, so his entire writings are just syntheses of classical works. In his Summa Theologica, he tries to reconcile texts which are all incredibly important to his medieval worldview, yet which sometimes appear contradictory. Analyzing the writings of Aristotle, St. Augustine, and most importantly, the Old and New Testaments, he takes a range of subjects and addresses each by listing a series of inconsistencies or objections and then systematically explaining why there is no discrepancy. He begins with the assumption that the Bible and Aristotle’s writing (e.g. Politics) are both irrefutably true, and therefore it must be possible to combine the authorities of the early church with the seemingly incompatible authorities of ancient Greek philosophy. (Edsall, Aquinas)
In addition to political philosophers, many poets and fiction writers also relied upon the authority of the Bible and classical texts in order to enhance or justify their literature. The best example is again the first such writer we looked at, the Italian poet Dante Alighieri. Dante fills his allegorical adventure story with famous figures from antiquity, both real (e.g. Virgil and Homer) and fictional (Ulysses, Charon, etc.). Like Aquinas, he also mixes pagan concepts with Christian ones; he merged the Greek Hades and all of its traditional characters with the Christian hell and unscrupulous characters from the Bible and church history. By adapting these incompatible versions of the underworld, he gives his setting tremendous resonance and a feeling of authenticity, even though he is describing a fictional journey. Dante also experiments with the concept of authorship (closely related to authority) by having his narrator be a slightly different person than himself. In the fourth canto, he sets himself up as an authority by having the great poets of antiquity, including Horace and Ovid, “invite [him] to join their ranks [to be] the sixth among such intellects” (Dante 35). Dante carefully mixes the authority of classical imagery and Catholic dogma while improving on the ancient epic poems by not only maintaining perfect meter but also a tight rhyme scheme throughout his one hundred chapter poem. This forces the reader to recognize his mastery of the genre and establishes Dante himself as a figure of authority in literature. (Edsall, Dante)
Long after Dante, the 17th century English author John Milton wrote an epic religious poem. Like the 12th century Play of Adam, Milton was expanding upon and enhancing the first story in the Bible, a preeminent authority. But by filling his poem with countless classical references, he was also imitating Dante, who by that point was as much of a master literary authority as Virgil or Homer. (Milton, Edsall, Solomon)
For Marie de France, it was even more important to use authoritative references so as to justify her position as a female poet. In her prologue, Marie claims to be imitating the “custom among the ancients, as Priscian testifies.” She also writes that she “has received knowledge and eloquence in speech from God [and thus] should not be silent or secretive but should demonstrate it willingly” (Marie 28). It is hard to imagine citing a higher authority than God. She also makes her lais more significant and interesting by claiming that they are not merely her inventions but are traditional classic myths of the Bretons, many of which she insists are true stories. Even today it is not uncommon for authors to claim their stories are true, or at least older, to make them seem more exotic (e.g. I, Claudius and The Princess Bride).
Another female poet who heavily quoted traditional authorities was new world nun Sor Juana, who lived five centuries after Marie de France but dealt with some of the same prejudices preventing women from writing. To prove that she is as intellectually competent as her male counterparts, she quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, Quintillian, Aristotle, and the Bible. Reminiscent of the style of Marc Antony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, she uses false humility and sarcastically claims that she is not worthy to challenge the Bishop of Puebla. (Sor Juana, Solomon)
Even women who are fictitious characters, such as Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, combined their experience with the authority of outside sources in order to make themselves more credible. Having traveled extensively and been married five times, the richly-dressed, late-middle-aged woman exudes experience. She brags to the other pilgrims that she went from rags to riches by marrying wealthy, old men and forcing them to give her control of all their property in exchange for attention and sexual favors. When other pilgrims cite the Bible in order to chastise her inappropriate attitudes or lifestyle, she turns their quotes against them with her own, more thorough knowledge of the Bible. She points out that the Bible does not explicitly limit the number of times one can be married. Instead, she refers to places where it instructs to be fruitful and multiply and praises the benefits of marriage. She also mentions holy figures (e.g. Abraham) who had more than one wife. Finally, she reasons that while virginity and chastity may be worthy virtues, they are not obligatory. Since Christ did not command every person to give everything they own to charity, he does not expect everyone to live pure and virtuous lives. Thus, the Wife of Bath uses her better familiarity with sources of authority to justify herself, and in so doing she convinces the reader that her own experience is a more important authority than anything written in a book. (Chaucer, Edsall)
Another fictional character who twists the idea of authority to humorous effect is Cervantes’ Don Quixote. For Don Quixote, the highest authority are the actions of the fictional knights in the chivalric romances he has read. Don Quixote does not make any decision unless it accords with what Sir Roland or Amadis of Gaul did in one of his books. This leads him into battles against impossible odds, into a chaste love affair, and into acts of self flagellation. Cervantes himself is also demonstrating a clever way to use authority which is to imitate and parody it. By copying the style of the earlier tales, Cervantes is making fun of them but is also revealing his familiarity with the genre and more subtly his appreciation and fondness for it. (Cervantes, Solomon)
Finally, nowhere is the issue of authority more essential and controversial than in the religious debates of the 16th century. In some respects, Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation by declaring to the Bible to be the only valid authority of religious practice. Since the New Testament does not mention priests and bishops, nor their power to affect miracles such as transubstantiation, the reformers declared that there is no theological justification for these intermediaries between man and God. Luther takes the somewhat radical view of textual authority by claiming that the teachings of Christ are essentially what matter, not the miracles and rituals. The Catholic Church, they felt, had strayed far from its original purpose and drastically needed to restructured or reorganized. (Hillerbrand, Solomon)
The Catholic Church responded in the Council of Trent by determining that the only sources of authority were both the Bible and the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church thus had its own Counter-Reformation to correct some of the Protestant’s complaints that it felt were valid. What the two movements had most in common was their desire to return to legitimate foundations of authority. The church stopped commissioning artwork of scenes that could not be found in the Bible, and it also curtailed many of the questionable actions of the clergy, such as the selling of indulgences. (Solomon)
The Protestant-Catholic debate points out one problem with relying on texts for authority. Both groups consider the Bible the ultimate authority because it represents an established link with past traditions and values. They cite Biblical quotes to justify their often contradictory points of theology. This is possible because the Bible does not have one particular theology or message: it is more than 1,000 pages of text written in several different languages by different groups over a period of more than 1,000 years. Furthermore, there are many different translations of the Bible. One can justify opposing positions with the Bible simply by choosing to quote different passages, and this is primarily how Christian debaters have always “proven” their arguments.
Nevertheless, intellectual authority remains as important an issue today as ever before, even in fields outside academia. Modern authors may be less likely to consider old texts as automatically true in the same degree as our medieval and renaissance counterparts were. But referencing a text which correlates with one’s opinion continues to be an essential step in persuasively communicating a viewpoint. Writing teachers still consider Aristotle’s Poetics the original and ultimate treatise on dramatic structure and analysis. Lawyers win cases by finding earlier decisions that resemble their cases and thus demonstrate a precedent. Moreover, our entire legal system is built around the idea of upholding the authority of legal contracts such as the U.S. Constitution. Finally, scientists continue to climb higher and higher on Newton’s shoulders, expanding upon, contradicting, and improving each other’s work as they establish themselves as the intellectual authorities for the next generation.
Works Cited
Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. Course Xerox Booklet 1999
Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quixote. Tr. J. M. Cohen. London: Penguin 1950.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Ed. & Tr. A. Kent Hieatt & Constance Hieatt.
New York: Bantam Books 1964.
Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri: Inferno. Tr. Allen Mandelbaum
New York: Bantam Books 1980.
Edsall, Mary. Notes from class lectures. Columbia University, Fall 1999.
Hillerbrand, Hans J. The Protestant Reformation. New York: Harper & Row 1968.
Marie de France. The Lais of Marie de France. Tr. Robert Hanning & Joan Ferrante.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books 1978
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Scott Elledge. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 1975.
Salisbury, John of. Policraticus: Of the Frivolities and Footprints of Courtiers.
Ed. & Tr. Cary J. Nederman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990.
Solomon, Andrea. Notes from class lectures. Columbia University, Fall 1999.
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Poems, Protest, and a Dream. Tr. Margaret Sayers Peden.
London: Penguin 1997.