tealin | Reading

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/09/zoroastrianism.html

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 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 voted his life to teaching 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 t era, Zoroastrians number fewer than 150,000, and are found among Indian parses 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.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/09/zoroastrianism.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/09/nestorianism-in-east.html

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.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/09/nestorianism-in-east.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/09/nestorius-of-constantinople.html

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.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/09/nestorius-of-constantinople.html

denise posting in

dw_news

A reminder to everyone that starting tomorrow, we are being forced to block access to any IP address that geolocates to the state of Mississippi for legal reasons while we and Netchoice continue fighting the law in court. People whose IP addresses geolocate to Mississippi will only be able to access a page that explains the issue and lets them know that we'll be back to offer them service as soon as the legal risk to us is less existential.

The block page will include the apology but I'll repeat it here: we don't do geolocation ourselves, so we're limited to the geolocation ability of our network provider. Our anti-spam geolocation blocks have shown us that their geolocation database has a number of mistakes in it. If one of your friends who doesn't live in Mississippi gets the block message, there is nothing we can do on our end to adjust the block, because we don't control it. The only way to fix a mistaken block is to change your IP address to one that doesn't register as being in Mississippi, either by disconnecting your internet connection and reconnecting it (if you don't have a static IP address) or using a VPN.

In related news, the judge in our challenge to Tennessee's social media age verification, parental consent, and parental surveillance law (which we are also part of the fight against!) ruled last month that we had not met the threshold for a temporary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the law while the court case proceeds.

The Tennesee law is less onerous than the Mississippi law and the fines for violating it are slightly less ruinous (slightly), but it's still a risk to us. While the fight goes on, we've decided to prevent any new account signups from anyone under 18 in Tennessee to protect ourselves against risk. We do not need to block access from the whole state: this only applies to new account creation.

Because we don't do any geolocation on our users and our network provider's geolocation services only apply to blocking access to the site entirely, the way we're implementing this is a new mandatory question on the account creation form asking if you live in Tennessee. If you do, you'll be unable to register an account if you're under 18, not just the under 13 restriction mandated by COPPA. Like the restrictions on the state of Mississippi, we absolutely hate having to do this, we're sorry, and we hope we'll be able to undo it as soon as possible.

Finally, I'd like to thank every one of you who's commented with a message of support for this fight or who's bought paid time to help keep us running. The fact we're entirely user-supported and you all genuinely understand why this fight is so important for everyone is a huge part of why we can continue to do this work. I've also sent a lot of your comments to the lawyers who are fighting the actual battles in court, and they find your wholehearted support just as encouraging and motivating as I do. Thank you all once again for being the best users any social media site could ever hope for. You make me proud and even more determined to yell at state attorneys general on your behalf.

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/maximus-confessor.html

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.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/maximus-confessor.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-division-of-nature.html

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:

Creating and not created.
Created and creating.
Created and not creating.
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.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-division-of-nature.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/john-irish-born.html

Alcuin of York is celebrated as a learned man and the head of the palace school of Aachen under Charlemagne, but one of his successors at Aachen is considered one of the most consequential philosophers of the entire Carolingian era. His name was John Scotus Eriugena, who was invited there by Charles the Bald, Charlemagne's grandson. Where did he come from? The answer is in the name.

He describes himself as "Eriugena" in his manuscripts, which means "Ireland-born." The "Scotus" part of his name is also how Irish or Gaels were called, so his name in full translates as "John the Irish-born Gael." (Ireland was called "Scotia Major" while Scotland was called "Scotia Minor.")

Educated in Ireland, he was invited to Aachen by Charles in 845, by which time his reputation for learning was already established. The school at Aachen flourished under him even more than under Alcuin, as it became a source not only of learning but of philosophy, which was John's strength. He was a Neoplatonist (following the ideas of some 3rd-century Greek philosophers who differed in some ways from Plato), and brought some of their ideas to Western Europe through Aachen.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

Eriugena’s thought is best understood as a sustained attempt to create a consistent, systematic, Christian Neoplatonism from diverse but primarily Christian sources. Eriugena had a unique gift for identifying the underlying intellectual framework, broadly Neoplatonic but also deeply Christian, assumed by the writers of the Christian East. [link]

Among his writings is De Divina Praedestinatione, "Concerning Divine Predestination." This was a request from Charles the Bald and Archbishop Hincmar of Reims to counter the predestinarianism of Gottschalk of Orbais, who preached that predestination was absolute in the sense that the damned were already damned since birth and free will did not apply. John wrote that God cannot predestine human freedom, people are saved or damned due to their own free will. Sin and evil are not caused by God; they are a rejection or negation of the good that comes from God, and it is the person's free will that leads them to choose not the good but its opposite.

He was thought to be the author of De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, "On the Body and Blood of the Lord," arguing that the bread and wine of the Mass were simply symbolic representations of Jesus' flesh and blood. (It was really written by Ratramnus.) Berengar of Tours later got into a lot of trouble over this idea, refuting transubstantiation.

Eriugena's De Divisione Naturae ("On the Division of Nature"), is considered his most important work, a summary and synthesis of 15 centuries of philosophy. We will tackle a basic understanding of its contents tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/john-irish-born.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/ratramnus.html

When Charles the Bald visited the abbey of New Corvey in 843, he said he would like to have the Eucharist explained to him. In response, the monk Ratramnus (died c.868) wrote a treatise, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, "On the Body and Blood of the Lord," in which he explained that the bread and wine represented the body and blood of Jesus figuratively.

The abbot of Corvey at the time was Paschasius Radbertus, who also wrote De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, in which he explained that the bread and wine were changed to be equal to the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. He presented a version of his work to Charles. These opposing views did not seem to create any controversy or conflict at the time. That all happened later when others took sides on the question.

Ratramnus also wrote works such as De Praedestinatione Dei, "On the Predestination of God." In this work he denied the ideas of Gottschalk of Orbais, an itinerant Saxon theologian who visited Corvey. Gottschalk believed that predestination worked on both the saved and the damned. Ratramnus defended this idea.

One of his other works was a letter about the Cynocephali, the dog-headed men. The archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, Saint Rimbert (c.830 - 888), while on a mission in Scandinavia, heard that there were communities of men with the heads of dogs living nearby. Rimbert's question was simple: if they were living in organized communities as he was told, were they then capable of reason and therefore of the race of Adam and suitable subjects for Christian conversion?

There was a long history of cynocephali going back to classical times, and they were usually referred to as animals. Ratramnus wrote that they were indeed human in essence though not in appearance and should be converted. (There are no stories of missionaries actually finding and communicating with any communities of dog-headed men.)

Ratramnus' most significant work on the body and blood was, at a later date, wrongly ascribed to someone else. When Berengar of Tours (died 1088) in a later century took up the topic, he used Ratramnus' work for his arguments, thinking it was the work of John Scotus Eriugena. John Scotus Eriugena was not an obscure person, but quite prominent, and we'll see why tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/ratramnus.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/paschasius-radbertus.html

About 831CE, a Carolingian monk at the monastery of New Corvey in Westphalia wrote De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, "On the Body and Blood of the Lord," in which he stated flatly that the words of Jesus to his disciples at the Last Supper ("This is my body; this is my blood") must be accepted as true, since God does not lie. Although he did not use the word transubstantiation (that came from the writing of Hildebert years later), this is clearly the start of that idea.

Paschasius had an interesting history, starting with his finding as an orphan in 785, left on the steps of the convent of Notre-Dame de Soissons, where he was raised by nuns and their abbess Theodara. Theodara had two brothers who were monks—Adalard and Wala—and visits to the convent by Adalard inspired Paschasius to follow Adalard to Corbie, where he met Wala.

When Paschasius was in his 30s, he followed Adalard to Saxony to help found the monastery of New Corvey. Adalard died in 826, and Paschasius supported Wala as his successor as abbot there. Wala was succeeded in 836 by Heddo, then Heddo by Isaac, but in 843 with Isaac's death, Paschasius became abbot.

During this time Paschasius wrote a few works on theology. De Corpore et Sanguine Domini was given to Charles the Bald of West Francia, a grandson of Charlemagne, in 844. As it turns out, Charles did not quite understand what he was reading, and he visited New Corvey and asked someone to explain the Eucharist to him. That person was Ratramnus.

Ratramnus was a member of New Corvey, possibly the teaching master there, and he wrote a work also entitled De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. Ratramnus explained that the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Jesus in a spiritual way, not physically transformed in any way that is perceptible by human senses. Any so-called "controversy" over the two views was non-existent at the time, only boiling over years later into a theological fight because of Berengar of Tours.

As for Paschasius, he wrote various other works and resigned his position in 853 to go to Saint-Riquier to live quietly. He returned to Corbie near the end of his life and died there in 865. Miracles were reported at his tomb, which caused them to move his body to a prominent place in the Church of St. Peter, Corbie.

Meanwhile, Ratramnus was also writing, including about men with heads of dogs, but let me go into that tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/paschasius-radbertus.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/berengar-and-controversy.html

After Berengar of Tours avoided what he assumed was a council to condemn him further (he had already been excommunicated for his denial of transubstantiation), he went to be shielded by some supporters, Count Geoffrey II of Anjou and a former student, Eusebius Bruno the Bishop of Angers.

Berengar was willing to accept that there was a spiritual change in the bread and wine, but the Church saw it as something more, an actual physical transformation. A regional synod in Tours in 1054 condemned him again. This concerned him so much that he wrote a letter recanting his earlier denial. He agreed that, during the Mass, the bread and wine became in some way the body and blood of Christ. The bishops who convened the Council of Tours in 1055 considered this sufficient and the matter settled.

He went to Rome in 1059, summoned once again to express his opinion. They wrote a statement for him to sign that was so far from his views:

...the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are after consecration not only a sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the senses not only sacramentally but in truth are taken and broken by the hands of the priests and crushed by the teeth of the faithful.

...that he refused to sign it. He requested an opportunity to speak before a group of prelates, but was denied.

Not long after, Geoffrey of Anjou died. Berengar returned home and reversed his earlier recantation from 1054; this obstinacy caused Eusebius to withdraw his support. Pope Alexander II offered him a lifeline, sending him a letter encouraging him to use silence as his shield and stop espousing radical views.

Berengar would not stop. In 1069 he wrote a treatise against Pope Nicholas II and the 1054 council that had condemned him. Lanfranc (in 1070 being appointed Archbishop of Canterbury) wrote a response, as did Bishop Hugo of Langres and Bishop Berengar of Venosa.

He was condemned again in 1076 at the Synod of Poitiers. Pope Gregory VII, who in 1054 was Cardinal Hildebrand, the papal legate who convened the Council of Tours at which Berengar originally agreed that transubstantiation occurred (although in a vague statement that was nonetheless enough to satisfy everyone), tried to save the situation by having Berengar sign (yet another) indefinite statement. Berengar's enemies were not satisfied and again called for a statement about real flesh and blood.

Berengar finally admitted the error of his ways, went home, and immediately wrote an account of the events in Rome and again reversed his position back to the original. This meant another synod to condemn him, this time at Bordeaux in 1080, at which he for the last time publicly renounced his earlier views. Tired no doubt of the controversy, and at this time probably a man at least in his 70s, he retired to an island near Tours, Saint-Cosme, where he died on 6 January 1088.

Berengar's situation thrust front and center the question of what happens to the bread and wine during the Mass. Theologians were forced to debate and determine the significance of the meal at the last Supper. Transubstantiation might not have taken hold had Berengar not raised the issue so stridently. But where did the idea of bread and wine becoming actual flesh and blood arise in the history of theology? Against whom was Berengar arguing? For that we are going to look back to a 9th century Carolingian abbot, the orphan Paschasius Radbertus...next time.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/berengar-and-controversy.html

denise posting in

dw_news

I'll start with the tl;dr summary to make sure everyone sees it and then explain further: As of September 1, we will temporarily be forced to block access to Dreamwidth from all IP addresses that geolocate to Mississippi for legal reasons. This block will need to continue until we either win the legal case entirely, or the district court issues another injunction preventing Mississippi from enforcing their social media age verification and parental consent law against us.

Mississippi residents, we are so, so sorry. We really don't want to do this, but the legal fight we and Netchoice have been fighting for you had a temporary setback last week. We genuinely and honestly believe that we're going to win it in the end, but the Fifth Circuit appellate court said that the district judge was wrong to issue the preliminary injunction back in June that would have maintained the status quo and prevented the state from enforcing the law requiring any social media website (which is very broadly defined, and which we definitely qualify as) to deanonymize and age-verify all users and obtain parental permission from the parent of anyone under 18 who wants to open an account.

Netchoice took that appellate ruling up to the Supreme Court, who declined to overrule the Fifth Circuit with no explanation -- except for Justice Kavanaugh agreeing that we are likely to win the fight in the end, but saying that it's no big deal to let the state enforce the law in the meantime.

Needless to say, it's a big deal to let the state enforce the law in the meantime. The Mississippi law is a breathtaking state overreach: it forces us to verify the identity and age of every person who accesses Dreamwidth from the state of Mississippi and determine who's under the age of 18 by collecting identity documents, to save that highly personal and sensitive information, and then to obtain a permission slip from those users' parents to allow them to finish creating an account. It also forces us to change our moderation policies and stop anyone under 18 from accessing a wide variety of legal and beneficial speech because the state of Mississippi doesn't like it -- which, given the way Dreamwidth works, would mean blocking people from talking about those things at all. (And if you think you know exactly what kind of content the state of Mississippi doesn't like, you're absolutely right.)

Needless to say, we don't want to do that, either. Even if we wanted to, though, we can't: the resources it would take for us to build the systems that would let us do it are well beyond our capacity. You can read the sworn declaration I provided to the court for some examples of how unworkable these requirements are in practice. (That isn't even everything! The lawyers gave me a page limit!)

Unfortunately, the penalties for failing to comply with the Mississippi law are incredibly steep: fines of $10,000 per user from Mississippi who we don't have identity documents verifying age for, per incident -- which means every time someone from Mississippi loaded Dreamwidth, we'd potentially owe Mississippi $10,000. Even a single $10,000 fine would be rough for us, but the per-user, per-incident nature of the actual fine structure is an existential threat. And because we're part of the organization suing Mississippi over it, and were explicitly named in the now-overturned preliminary injunction, we think the risk of the state deciding to engage in retaliatory prosecution while the full legal challenge continues to work its way through the courts is a lot higher than we're comfortable with. Mississippi has been itching to issue those fines for a while, and while normally we wouldn't worry much because we're a small and obscure site, the fact that we've been yelling at them in court about the law being unconstitutional means the chance of them lumping us in with the big social media giants and trying to fine us is just too high for us to want to risk it. (The excellent lawyers we've been working with are Netchoice's lawyers, not ours!)

All of this means we've made the extremely painful decision that our only possible option for the time being is to block Mississippi IP addresses from accessing Dreamwidth, until we win the case. (And I repeat: I am absolutely incredibly confident we'll win the case. And apparently Justice Kavanaugh agrees!) I repeat: I am so, so sorry. This is the last thing we wanted to do, and I've been fighting my ass off for the last three years to prevent it. But, as everyone who follows the legal system knows, the Fifth Circuit is gonna do what it's gonna do, whether or not what they want to do has any relationship to the actual law.

We don't collect geolocation information ourselves, and we have no idea which of our users are residents of Mississippi. (We also don't want to know that, unless you choose to tell us.) Because of that, and because access to highly accurate geolocation databases is extremely expensive, our only option is to use our network provider's geolocation-based blocking to prevent connections from IP addresses they identify as being from Mississippi from even reaching Dreamwidth in the first place. I have no idea how accurate their geolocation is, and it's possible that some people not in Mississippi might also be affected by this block. (The inaccuracy of geolocation is only, like, the 27th most important reason on the list of "why this law is practically impossible for any site to comply with, much less a tiny site like us".)

If your IP address is identified as coming from Mississippi, beginning on September 1, you'll see a shorter, simpler version of this message and be unable to proceed to the site itself. If you would otherwise be affected, but you have a VPN or proxy service that masks your IP address and changes where your connection appears to come from, you won't get the block message, and you can keep using Dreamwidth the way you usually would.

On a completely unrelated note while I have you all here, have I mentioned lately that I really like ProtonVPN's service, privacy practices, and pricing? They also have a free tier available that, although limited to one device, has no ads or data caps and doesn't log your activity, unlike most of the free VPN services out there. VPNs are an excellent privacy and security tool that every user of the internet should be familiar with! We aren't affiliated with Proton and we don't get any kickbacks if you sign up with them, but I'm a satisfied customer and I wanted to take this chance to let you know that.

Again, we're so incredibly sorry to have to make this announcement, and I personally promise you that I will continue to fight this law, and all of the others like it that various states are passing, with every inch of the New Jersey-bred stubborn fightiness you've come to know and love over the last 16 years. The instant we think it's less legally risky for us to allow connections from Mississippi IP addresses, we'll undo the block and let you know.

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/berengar-of-tours.html

A controversial figure who was widely respected by some and strongly denounced by others, Berengar was born in the early 11th century, probably in Tours. He was educated at the school of Chartres under Bishop Fulbert of Chartres. When Fulbert died in 1028, Berengar returned to Tours and became a canon at the cathedral there, becoming head of its school in 1040.

His simple lifestyle, erudition, and judgment enhanced his reputation to the point where he was asked to preside over a dispute between the bishop of Poitiers and his diocesan priests. Count (from 1040 - 1060) Geoffrey of Anjou was an admirer and supporter. To be frank, Geoffrey was described in the Gesta Normannorum Ducum as "a treacherous man in every respect, frequently inflicted assaults and intolerable pressure on his neighbors." Nevertheless, a good man to have on your side if you had controversial views.

He had two views that clashed with official Church thought. He preached the supremacy of Scripture (as opposed to many of the trappings and embellishments of the liturgy that had been added over the years). He might have been fine if that was all. His real downfall was his denial of transubstantiation, the idea that the bread and wine during the Mass was actually transformed in some way to the flesh and blood of Jesus.

To be fair to Berengar, not everyone believed in transubstantiation. A Carolingian theologian in the 9th century, Paschasius Radbertus, was one of the first to claim that the Eucharist was identical to flesh and blood because what Jesus said during the Last Supper must be true because God does not lie. This idea did not receive universal support. A Frankish monk named Ratramnus (died c.868) and Hrabanus Maurus (c.780 - 856) suggested the conversion was more spiritual than physical.

Berengar was accused of disregarding the presence of the divine in the Eucharist, when it is possible that he simply rejected the idea of a physical change in the bread and wine. Berengar wrote in 1050 to Lanfranc of Bec in Normandy (later archbishop of Canterbury), expressing his concern that Lanfranc supported the idea of transubstantiation and considered Ratramnus heretical. Lanfranc had been traveling to Rome, and the letter followed him there. Lanfranc shared the letter with others, with the result that Berengar was summoned to appear at a council in Vercelli in northern Italy. Berengar asked King Henry I of France for permission to go. For reasons unknown, Henry refused and kept Berengar captive. The Lanfranc letter was read in Vercelli and Berengar was declared excommunicated.

The king released him, but called his own council in Paris for October 1051, inviting Berengar. Berengar suspected this council was intended to do him more harm, so he went to stay with Count Geoffrey. The bishop of Angers, Eusebius of Angers, also supported Berengar, under whom he had studied at Tours.

The Church was not going to let him live out his excommunicated life in peace, however. I'll go into that tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/berengar-of-tours.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/transubstantiation.html

I'm going to start with a quotation from a website about transubstantiation and Paul to the Corinthians:

Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, “This is my Body,” meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so. [source]

The idea that the bread and wine of the Last Supper was not just bread and wine offered symbolically was a powerful image, and it was made official Church doctrine by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. But the bread and wine was considered special as early as the 1st century CE as evidenced by the Didache.

The Didache (Classical Greek, "Teaching") is perhaps the earliest document outside of the Bible that deals with Christianity. Its first line is "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the twelve apostles." It states:

Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, 'Give not that which is holy to the dogs'.

The idea of bread and wine actually converting had its supporters and doubters, of course, and there were works written to support both sides. One of the arguments in favor was that Jesus would not lie, and so when he says "This is my body," it is to be taken as proof that the bread has somehow transformed into his flesh. Berengar of Tours, however, in the 11th century argued against any actual physical change; I mentioned this many years ago when talking about Lanfranc, who was forced to argue against Berengar partially for personal and political reasons.

It has been speculated that Hildebert of Lavardin may have studied under Berengar. Whether true or not, Hildebert did not support Berengar's views on the bread and wine. In fact, Hildebert believed just the opposite, and it is in his writings that the word "transubstantiation" is first used to describe the process spoken of by Jesus at the Last Supper. The Fourth Lateran Council took up this terminology when they said the bread and wine "transubstantiate" during the Mass.

But what about Berengar? He was obviously influential but had different ideas from some of his contemporaries. How important was he? Did he have anything else to say besides his rejection of transubstantiation? Let's talk about him next time.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/transubstantiation.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-medieval-protestant.html

Peter of Bruys is known to us because of the writings of two of his enemies. He was born in southeastern France and became a Roman Catholic priest who worked in Provence and Dauphiny about 1117 until 1131. He clashed strongly with the institution of which he was a member, however, and was defrocked.

The reason for the clash was his rejection of much of the trappings of the Roman Catholic Church as they had developed over the centuries, embellishing on practices that were not true to the central spirit of the Gospels. Five of his "erroneous" teachings were described by Peter the Venerable.

The first was about infant baptism. The Petrobusian point was that Jesus said "He who will believe and be baptized" will be saved. Infants did not have the capacity to believe, and baptism should be offered when they are old enough to choose it. St. Augustine of Hippo, however, had declared that baptizing infants and children was essential to save them from Original Sin.

The Petrobrusians also felt that churches and temples were unnecessary, but the Church felt it was important to have a beautiful and impressive building in which the faithful could gather.

Spurning idolatry, the followers of Peter destroyed and burned crosses, because this was the mechanism by which Jesus was killed. It should therefore not be venerated.

The Sacraments also came under fire. Communion was derided. In the words of Peter the Venerable:

They deny, not only the truth of the body and blood of the Lord, daily and constantly offered in the church through the sacrament, but declare that it is nothing at all, and ought not to be offered to God. They say, 'Oh, people, do not believe the bishops, priests, or clergy who seduce you; who, as in many things, so in the office of the altar, deceive you when they falsely profess to make the body of Christ and give it to you for the salvation of your souls.'

The idea of transubstantiation, the conversion of simple bread and wine into something more, the body and blood of Christ, was not declared official until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, but it had already been accepted belief for a couple centuries.

The fifth point made against them was that they rejected the idea that prayers of the living could somehow aid the dead; once dead your spirit could no longer improve.

This simplicity of devotion—washing away all the additions made by the Church to what the Gospels offered—has made him appear to be an early example of the Protestant Reformation.

I've already written how Henry of Lausanne took up these ideas and preached them himself after Peter's demise to such widespread effect that followers were called Henricians after Henry as well as Petrobrusians. The two would have been a powerful pair of preachers, except for what happened to Peter.

About the year 1131, on Good Friday, Peter of Bruys was being true to his message and burning crosses to make a cooking fire in St. Gilles near Nîmes. Apparently he had not been there long enough to have a following, and his actions outraged the population so strongly that they seized him and threw him onto the fire of burning crosses, killing him. (Enjoy the illustration of Jan Hus being burned from a 1485 Chronicle.)

I've written about transubstantiation before, but I want to revisit it and share that the first use of that term was by someone we've talked about in the past week. See you tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-medieval-protestant.html

andreasdeja_feed

Posted by Andreas Deja

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2025/08/more-hercules.html

Starting off with a very happy Hercules. At his point I don't remember which scene this key drawing of mine belongs to. I would need to look it up.

Let's go back to the start of Herc's visual development. Beginning with anatomical studies.

These are my thumbnail sketches from the scene in which he meets Meg. I drew them from video reference. He is all shy here, almost forgets his name. He clears his throat and introduces himself.

Early design explorations for Hercules.

And he looked like this before I started animating.

Another key animation drawing. With wet hair from a scene after the fight with Nessus.

I am just so pleased that today the film seems to have found new audiences that embrace both the satire and the pathos we tried to convey.

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2025/08/more-hercules.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/more-heresy.html

After being slapped down at the Council of Pisa in 1135, Henry of Lausanne refused an invitation to join St. Bernard at Clairvaux, opting instead to go to the south of France where he was exposed to the ideas of another unorthodox preacher, Peter of Bruys. Peter had died a few years earlier in 1131—well, "was killed" is more accurate—but he had persuaded many to his views on the Church

The "Petrobrusian" ideas were even more radical than Henry's. Peter rejected the church policies and practices of infant baptism, veneration of crosses, building churches, prayers for the dead, and transubstantiation. Henry took up these points in his own preaching with great success.

It is a work from Peter the Venerable that we learn about this. Also known as Peter of Cluny, he wrote in 1139 a letter, Epistola adversus Petrobrusianos, "against the Petrobrusians." In it we learn what the Petrobrusian doctrine was, and he accuses Henry of preaching errors from Peter of Bruys and spreading them in all the dioceses of southern France. These errors start with recognizing the Gospel as the sole rule of faith, and lead therefore to rejecting the authority of the Church, the sacraments of the Mass, infant baptism, and the Eucharist, as well as rejecting the idea of the communion of saints, prayers for the dead, and any formal worship or liturgy. Peter Abelard also spoke out against the Petrobrusians.

Bernard was asked to debate Henry, and after a time agreed to travel to Henry's location in 1145. When he closed in on Henry's location in Toulouse, Henry left in order to avoid a confrontation. Bernard stayed and preached to any of Henry's followers who would listen, and his eloquence and piety (and reputation for miracles) brought many back to Roman orthodoxy.

Bernard went home to Clairvaux and Henry continued to preach, finally being arrested and condemned by the bishop of Toulouse to life imprisonment (imprisonment is an assumption, based on his disappearance from the historical record and no reference to execution). Bernard in 1146 wrote an open letter to the people of Toulouse, calling on them to abandon the false doctrines preached by Henry. The ideas lived on until at least 1151, however, at which time Matthew Paris tells us that a young girl, inspired by the Virgin Mary, converted many followers of Henry of Lausanne.

What happened to Peter of Bruys in 1131? That makes a good story, though not a happy one for him. I'll see you back here tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/more-heresy.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/henry-of-lausanne.html

When Bishop Hildebert returned to Le Mans after his visit to Rome (to ask the pope to let him resign from his position), he faced a situation that made him really not want to be the bishop anymore. Henry of Lausanne had been preaching there.

Henry was likely a Benedictine who had left the order and decided to follow his own path. In Hildebert's absence, Henry had started preaching publicly, a practice that was usually only the province of the regular clergy. Peter the Venerable wrote a pamphlet describing Henry's message: penitence was paramount, the intercession of saints was not a thing, second marriages were sinful. People responded, giving up the trappings of wealth. We are told that young men would even marry their prostitutes in order to "make honest women" of them.

One result was that the population began to reject ecclesiastical authority as unnecessary, replacing it with a simpler lifestyle. Henry and Hildebert had a public debate in which Henry's principles were shown (one person wrote) to be less heretical than simply born out of ignorance of what the Bible and Church doctrine said. Still, Hildebert banished Henry from Le Mans.

Henry went elsewhere, winding up in Arles where the archbishop arrested him and, in 1135, brought him before Pope Innocent II at the Council of Pisa. In this case a tribunal did find him heretical. He was ordered to stop his itinerant ways and go to a monastery. Supposedly he was offered a place at Clairvaux Abbey by Bernard of Clairvaux.

Bernard was a powerful influence, and association with him would have given Henry some protection (and perhaps modified his views). Henry chose instead to go to the south of France where he met Peter of Bruys. Peter was an early protestant who rejected infant baptism, veneration of crosses, building churches, prayers for the dead, and transubstantiation.

Henry adopted the ideas of Peter, and continued to preach them after Peter's death. This was not a wise career move for him, as we shall see tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2025/08/henry-of-lausanne.html

Profile

Tealin

Tealin's Art

December 2023

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Procrastination Device

Reading

Zoroastrianism

Nestorianism in the East

Nestorius of Constantinople

Mississippi site block, plus a small restriction on Tennessee new accounts

Maximus the Confessor

The Division of Nature

John the Irish-born

Ratramnus

Paschasius Radbertus

Berengar and Controversy

Mississippi legal challenge: beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

Berengar of Tours

Transubstantiation

The Medieval Protestant

More Hercules

More Heresy

Henry of Lausanne

Profile

December 2023

Links

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

Most Popular Tags