tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post8352676689216069345..comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Comments on Mary and Mariology: Henry Adams, Pius XII, and ModernityServant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-59286542185585131872015-12-09T14:00:45.189-06:002015-12-09T14:00:45.189-06:00This post and the conversations around it are inte...This post and the conversations around it are interesting because the issue they raise is greater than just Marian devotion. I see Henry Adams as believing that the underlying occult, life-giving forces that power the Western mind have been transmigrated from one object of devotion into another. This general metempsychosis from the Virgin Mary into modern technology, if that really is the right word to use, points to an even larger shift, one that encompasses how we think about the world, religion, morality, and even ourselves. I don't read Adams as feeling nostalgic or trying to recapture the past, but admiring the various forms this ahistorical "force" has taken across history. This isn't to say that Adam's discussion of Mary as a gendered Venus is just window-dressing; rather, he sees Mary's womanhood as an essential part of this premodern dynamo, though he might have argued it clumsily.<br /><br />Then again, how else could someone like Adams treat the subject of Mary's gender? With Mary no longer where she was in the medieval cosmology, how can we even think about femininity the same way? Adams, both directly and indirectly, points to a categorical shift in the way we look at devotion, and all the things it entails, and I'm inclined to believe that Adams was right. To some extent having "faith" (in the sense we discussed in class), as well as letting Pius XII's arguments resonate with us, entails letting go of some of the modern prejudices we hold. Letting go of modern prejudices is something we've attempted to do for the whole class, but I doubt if we can fully comprehend Mary the way a medieval devotee could, or even Pope Pius.<br /><br />F.G.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-68171753877167107332015-12-04T17:12:18.457-06:002015-12-04T17:12:18.457-06:00Your observation about the deeper concerns and shi...Your observation about the deeper concerns and shifts that Henry Adams brings to the discussion of Mary is very helpful, yet it should be said that without his participation in the Mary-as-*woman* movement within modernity Adams would not have impacted the history of Mary as significantly. Without Adams’ novel articulation of the theory that Mary stood so preeminently over the history of Europe that she created her own weight – independent of the Church even – as a woman, the development of this strain into the likes of Mary Daly and Marina Warner may not have materialized. Adams’ claim that Mary became the Queen of France in a fashion so regal and overpowering as to inspire artistic endeavors can aptly be noted as his central focus – as M.D. acknowledges – yet in the transition through modernity to postmodernity the significance of Adams as a historian undoubtedly rests much more in his incorporation of the feminine vocabulary into his portrait of Mary.<br /><br />W.K.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-87146615667950444232015-11-28T16:33:18.145-06:002015-11-28T16:33:18.145-06:00I think you've captured very well here the ten...I think you've captured very well here the tension in Adams' writing, this tension between Mary as dynamo, an awe-inspiring, driving cultural force, and his insistence that Mary is this illusion which keeps people in ignorance. This tug between Adams' romanticization of the Medieval mind (and, to some extent, Medieval theology and “ignorance”) and his own fears is what makes this account so compelling to general readers and such a misrepresentation of the Marian traditions. As you point out, Adams sees himself as an enlightened, educated historian viewing a site built for an occult dynamo, a force that exists outside of any proper modern understanding, and yet it is this modern understanding that leaves him cold. He envies the “deal” that he believes the Medieval believers received, where their belief, admittedly a belief in an illusion, permeated Chartes, even in every moment of its construction. It's this grounding in belief, false though he considers hit, that makes Mary the great dynamo that built cathedrals that steam cannot. I doubt that Adams would argue that steam could not build Chartes, obviously people in his time had the technology to do so with more ease than their predecessors, but steam would not build Chartes: an engine that provides cultural motivation. Unfortunately, as easy as it is to fall into these romantic revelries, it is easy to fall into these misrepresentations of the Marian traditions. -ZSRServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-48362877658885807542015-11-28T16:33:15.241-06:002015-11-28T16:33:15.241-06:00I think you've captured very well here the ten...I think you've captured very well here the tension in Adams' writing, this tension between Mary as dynamo, an awe-inspiring, driving cultural force, and his insistence that Mary is this illusion which keeps people in ignorance. This tug between Adams' romanticization of the Medieval mind (and, to some extent, Medieval theology and “ignorance”) and his own fears is what makes this account so compelling to general readers and such a misrepresentation of the Marian traditions. As you point out, Adams sees himself as an enlightened, educated historian viewing a site built for an occult dynamo, a force that exists outside of any proper modern understanding, and yet it is this modern understanding that leaves him cold. He envies the “deal” that he believes the Medieval believers received, where their belief, admittedly a belief in an illusion, permeated Chartes, even in every moment of its construction. It's this grounding in belief, false though he considers hit, that makes Mary the great dynamo that built cathedrals that steam cannot. I doubt that Adams would argue that steam could not build Chartes, obviously people in his time had the technology to do so with more ease than their predecessors, but steam would not build Chartes: an engine that provides cultural motivation. Unfortunately, as easy as it is to fall into these romantic revelries, it is easy to fall into these misrepresentations of the Marian traditions. -ZSRServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-15422737360166415832015-11-28T12:49:10.924-06:002015-11-28T12:49:10.924-06:00I'm glad RLFB brought up this question, becaus...I'm glad RLFB brought up this question, because I had a defiant reaction to the Church's response when we saw it in only a positive light in class. We interpreted the Pope's "Munificentissimus Deus" as an official affirmation of Mary's doctrine, and one that successfully fought back against claims such as Henry Adam's that Mary was a niche goddess irrelevant to modernity and Protestantism. However, MD, I must disagree with you that the Pope "demonstrates a reasonability of belief" in his decrees. Rather than fortifying documents, I saw his writings as weak retaliations against the strong current of the Protestant belittling of Mary. The "Munificentissimus Deus" regurgitated the defensive arguments made by past Popes, priests and Christian scholars, like John Duns Scotus. Perhaps the unification (finally!) of these scattered defensive claims was what made us accepting of this document in class, but the arguments laid out, such as that the Marian doctrine has always been around, "it seems appropriate, is wholly fitting" and thus should continue to be worshipped, are trite. Using Scotus's and others' claims as the primary argument and scripture as secondary, rather than reversing the order of importance and persuasiveness, was also a poor strategy. In addition, rather than addressing skeptics like Henry Adams and Bernard of Clairveaux with rebuttles of their arguments, the Church desperately reiterates its initial claims, proving weak and ineffective in legitimizing Marian doctrine. Though I also disagree with Henry Adams's perception of Mary, I was even more so wholly unconvinced of the Church's defense of the Annunciation.<br />-ALZServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-8023970192911339132015-11-28T12:46:28.469-06:002015-11-28T12:46:28.469-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-28413282960434777252015-11-28T10:21:30.358-06:002015-11-28T10:21:30.358-06:00I really liked how you described Henry James’ reac...I really liked how you described Henry James’ reactions to Mary here. James’ reactions in to Mary in The Education of Henry Adams are not based off scriptural readings strictly per se, as you point to when he says he knew something of the “facts”. We talked about in the beginning of the quarter about how these “facts” are troublesome as historical materials, and James might be struggling with Mary because of how he views the scriptures from a historians point of view. James’ reactions also do not appear based off Church leaders, or Church documents, which have been what we’ve been basing our historical arguments on. I think this is why I think the class found him a little bizarre. Henry James’ history is about himself, and his historical basis is his experiences. His writings describe his understanding as confused about what the powers of both technology (the dynamos), and religion (Mary) are. It is not surprising that James is a bit confused by Mary in religion as he has a Protestant background. James’ classical education also comes through a lot by comparing Mary to Venus, but I do not think Mary as a gendered being is completely new. Mary has been a woman the whole time, she has been the blessed women, but not a goddesses. Comparing Mary to Venus, god of love and sex is over the top, but she is mother of God, not an it who gave birth to God. I think we really focused on that in class because James’ comparison of Venus to Mary seemed bizarre, but I also think you are right in that James’ comparison was not really his argument. I think it was probably just an off of the top of head comparison to another important female figure in religion. I think you really hit the nail on the head when arguing that James’ concern in the passages we read were his confusion and despair at finding knowledge and understanding. <br /><br />HPB<br />Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-40380779004549657992015-11-27T14:49:00.133-06:002015-11-27T14:49:00.133-06:00I have to confess that I had not previously consid...I have to confess that I had not previously considered Adams' description of Mary as symbol in quite the detail that we did on Tuesday, in large part because previously I have tended to read Adams more as you do here--as somewhat wistful about not being able to make sense of Mary, even as he (in effect) belittles her ("makes her little") and her cathedral. On the one hand, in <i>Mont Saint Michel and Chartres</i>, he talks about the faith that built the cathedral as having died, but in <i>The Education</i>, he seems convinced that something of its force can still be understood, if only by analogy to the dynamo. Alas, for all that we can see how far his understanding has come from the medieval sources that we have been reading, I myself more often than not fear that Adams is right: we (modern Anglo-American culture) have lost something in the transition to industrialized, largely Protestant modernity that makes understanding the appeal of Mary for pre-modern Christians extremely difficult. I think, too, that you are absolutely right in your reading of Pius XII's concerns to counter the doubt and confusion that Adams experienced. The question is whether Pius himself succeeded in answering these concerns. You conclude by citing him, but I would be interested whether you find yourself convinced. RLFBServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com