Saint Augustine, Harry Potter, and Gadamer

Several years ago, J.K. Rowling came out with the announcement that she had always saw Albus Dumbledore as gay. Of course, this would give the anti-Harry Potter people in the Conservative Christian community more ammunition to condemn the series. Why did she come out with the announcement years after the series was published? This event forced me to face the controversy about the intentions of the author. I was taught by my own Christian tradition that there was one interpretation, a literal interpretation; and that the job of the interpreter was to determine the author’s intention. So, J.K. Rowling said that she thought of Dumbledore as gay, and if I was to follow my tradition, I would agree with her. The problem I did not see Dumbledore as gay, and I had read the series at least three times. A second problem was that I thought literature could have multiple interpretations and they all could be true. For example, a literal interpretation, a moral interpretation, and a spiritual interpretation.

            In my course on scholarly writing with Dr. Stark, one of the required readings was Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics. I was glad this book was on the reading list since I was dissatisfied with the Biblical hermeneutics I had been thought. Reading this book addressed many of my questions about hermeneutics and created others. One thing he did say was that the author did not own the interpretation; in fact, once the book was published, he was on a similar level with other interpreters. This reminded me about reading Walker Percy’s interviews and the secondary literature on Percy. Interpreters often disagreed with Percy on the interpretations of his own work. Then, you have Ray Bradbury disagreeing with readers of Fahrenheit 451 that the book was about censorship. Can Saint Augustine help us solve these issues?

            Saint Augustine, in his work, On Christian Teaching, addresses many of these issues. In some sense, he both agrees and disagrees with these different positions on author’s intention. Augustine believes that a good interpretation of Scripture will lead to love. He asserts, “Whoever, then thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought” (22). This seems to imply that if the author’s intended meaning conflict with the love rule, the love rule will overrule it. Augustine distinguishes between signs and things. Some things are only things, but some things serve as signs. Words are signs that point to things. Augustine does think the intention of the author is important: “Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. . . . if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads” (22). Augustine seems to think that the scripture is a thing to use, not enjoy. The purpose of scripture is to lead us to God. So, he accepts multiple interpretation as long as it fulfills the purpose of leading us to God. The goal of scripture is not a correct interpretation; instead, it is a transformed life.  

A Christian Poetic

Longinus in his work, On the Sublime, calls for both an elevation of thought and simplicity. In this work, he presents to the reader “an art of the sublime or lofty” (1). The Oxford Color Dictionary defines sublime: “1. Of great beauty or excellence. 2. Extreme or unparalleled.”[1] Longinus states that sublimity “is a certain distinction and excellence in expression” (1). The effect of sublimity on the audience is “transport,” not persuasion. He thinks the reader can resists persuasion, “but the influences of the sublime bring power and irresistible might to bear, and reign supreme over very hearer” (1). Longinus seems to be saying that the sublime creates in us an aesthetic experience where we meet the author in elevated thought. It is a work of imagination more than a work of reason. This is accomplished by “skill in invention and due order and arrangement of matter, emerging as the hard one result not of one thing or two, but of the whole texture of the composition, whereas Sublimity flashing forth at the right moment scatters everything before it like a thunderbolt, and at once displays the power of the orator in all its plentitude” (1). The order and arrangement of the composition is one of the principles of the sublime. Longinus essay on the sublime seems to demonstrate some of the things he is arguing. For example, his epistle is organized around his five principles of elevated language: 1. Power of forming great conceptions; 2. Passion; 3. Formation of figures; 4. Noble diction; 5. Dignified and elevated composition. How might sublimity inform a Christian poetic? This essay discusses how these five principles of the sublime could inform a Christian poetic.

            The most important principle, according to Longinus, is the “elevation of the mind” (6). Our souls must be nurtured on noble thoughts. It must be free of “low and ignoble thoughts” (6). This great soul is a person of moral character who has deep thoughts. This person has intelligence and wisdom from moral teaching and long years of practice. Noble thoughts will be demonstrated in the language used by the writer. Longinus surprisingly refers to Moses, “Similarly, the legislator of the Jews, no ordinary man, having formed and expressed a worthy conception of the might of the Godhead, writes at the very beginning of his laws, ‘God said’--what? ‘Let there be light, and there was light; let there be land, and there was land” (7). The author indicates great souls by mentioning people like Moses, Homer, Plato, and Sophocles. These are people above the ordinary. These are people that had great thoughts and wrote great words. These are authors that people continue to read thousands of years later. Longinus states, “When a thing is heard repeatedly by a man of intelligence, who is well versed in literature, and its effect is not to dispose the soul to high thoughts, and it does not leave in the mind more food for reflection than the words seem to convey, but falls, if examined carefully through and through, into disesteem, it cannot rank as true sublimity because it does not survive a first hearing. For that is really great which bears a repeated examination, and which it is difficult or rather impossible to withstand, and the memory of which is strong and hard to efface. In general, consider those examples of sublimity, to be fine and genuine which please all and always” (5). Are their Christian works that meets this high standard? There are many Christian works that demonstrate these characteristics: Dante’s Divine Comedy, Spencer’s The Faerie Queene, Milton’s Paradise Lost, and others. Examples of Modern Christian Art would be the writings of Flannery O’ Connor, Walker Percy, and William Faulkner, Graham Greene, Saul Bellows, and Wendell Berry. The author does not have to be Christian nor does the work need to address Christian themes directly to be considered Christian art. A Christian poetic will seek to emulate noble thoughts and lives, and it will transport the reader beyond their own world.

Two good models that demonstrate principles of a Christian poetic are C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia and J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. It seems to fulfill all five principles of the Sublime. First, it forms conceptions of great power. Tolkien and Lewis creates uniques worlds which transports the reader to another time and place. They are works that call for repeated readings. They illustrate noble actions and noble character. Second, they illustrate “vehement and inspired passion” (5). For example, you have betrayal and the death of Aslan in The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe. You have Frodo helped in fulfilling his mission by Golem’s biting off the ring and his finger. These works demonstrate the due formation of figures. For example, in The Silver Chair, Lewis gives us picture of the existence of truth, goodness, and beauty. It alludes to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Longinus states that authors should imitate and emulate “previous great poets and writers” (12). A fourth characteristic of the sublime described by  Longinus is “the choice of proper and striking words [that] attracts and enthralls the hearer” (24). Both Lewis and Tolkien through their language, diction, metaphors lift the reader out of their current context to a different world which ennobles them, delights them, and makes them wiser. The last principle of the sublime is “the arrangement of the words in a certain order” (30). This is seen by all the parts working together to produce a work of great power. The reader thinks about all the different parts of The Lord of the Rings and how they are different, but they all work together to depict a work of excellence. Longinus, On the Sublime, provides the Christian writer with five principles to help them create works of grandeur. In addition, we have Christians like Lewis and Tolkien to lead the way.

---

[1] The Oxford Color Dictionary edited by Angie Stevenson with Julia Elliott and Richard Jones. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 701.

Knowledge is Not Owned

James V. Schall, "Knowledge is not Owned" in Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught. South Bend, Indiana: ST. Augustine's Press, 2016.

I am giving my third read-through of Fr. Schall's book, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught. Schall is one of my favorite authors. Last week I was reading Horace's The Art of Poetry last week. It is an essay on how to write poetry. Horace was a Roman poet who lived before Christ. In this work, he states that an author should both delight and teach. This has been my experience in reading Schall is that I am both delighted and taught.

Schall wrote an essay that I have read many times. The essay is "What a Student Owes His Teacher." This is a surprising thought to students that they owe anything to their teacher. Schall states that the student owes the teacher the "willingness to do the sometimes hard work of learning." This idea might seem strange to many people since many people think students must be entertained. It is also a shock that to learn the important things requires hard work. A significant point that Schall makes is that this is one thing the teacher cannot give the student. The student must be willing to make the effort to learn. The primary agent is learning is the student, not the teacher. The teacher serves more like a guide. Learning is not something you can pour into the top of the student's head. To learn anything, the student's intelligence must be engaged. This willingness to learn is what Schalls calls docilitas.

Schall, in speaking about the desire to learn, asserts: "As a course progresses through a semester or a year, this willingness to be taught should rouse in the student something more. He should find in his soul a conscious desire to learn, a fascination with the whole enterprise, a sense that something exists out there that he wants to know" (3). This makes me think that the most important thing that we receive from education is the feeling of the incompleteness of our education and the desire to keep on learning. I started college over thirty years ago and my desire for learning has not left me. In reality, it makes me realize all that I do not know. Even a whole lifetime is not enough time to know all that we need to know. Schall asserts, "At the end of a course, a student ought to walk away satisfied that he learned something. But he is still fully aware that much is still there to know, deeper, more profoundly" (3). This reminds me of Plato's allegory of the cave which is an allegory of learning. We must rise from things that exist to the truth of things. We must contemplate the great ideas of beauty, truth, goodness, virtue, happiness, and other great ideas. This task cannot be accomplished in our schooling; it can only begin there.

Another truth is that learning facts are not the most important thing. Do not get me wrong; facts are important. However, we will forget more than we remember. The important thing is to have the desire to learn and keep on learning. We might even say that the student needs a passion for learning. Schall also says that the student "should experience a genuine pleasure" in learning. Schall adds, "this excitement and delight are not things that a teacher can give to a student" (3). A teacher can model this eagerness for learning. In addition, the teacher can introduce the student to the world of learning. The student, however, must have this desire for learning within themselves. They need to pursue the truth with a passion. Plato even said that the student needs an eros for wisdom. Schall is a good guide for the student with an eagerness to learn.

 

The Utilitarian View of Reading

Leland Ryken lists eight ways to misread great literature. The third way is to “look upon the classics as ‘improving literature’ (10).” One way to consider Ryken’s point is to think of reading as a spiritual exercise to improve one’s character. It is similar to listening to a sermon, praying, or listening to a lecture. Ryken suggests “that we view the classics as a form of entertainment first of all” (10). Cicero in his essay on the value of literature provides different reasons for the value of literature. Some of these reasons are: “provides my mind with refreshment after the din of the courts; . . . soothes my ears to rest when they are wearied by angry disputes” (395); provides material for his many speeches; better than participating in riotous living; and others. The argument in Cicero’s essay and a good bit of this week’s discussion seem very utilitarian to me. A typical definition for utility is “the state of being useful or profitable.” This post will argue that utility is an insufficient goal of reading.

Is Cicero really arguing for the utilitarian view of reading? First, is Cicero really arguing for a utilitarian view of reading. It seems like he does. Many of the reasons he provides for the value of literature are legitimate. Reading both refreshes and relaxes the reader after a hard day of work (395). It does provide material for speaking and writing (395). It does provide models worth emulating (396). Lastly, it does have a “broadening and enlightening effect” (397). Cicero, however, seems to be over-arguing his point which leads me to believe that he is trying to justify the extensive amount of time spent reading books. For example, he states that reading has not prevented him from helping people (395-396). He seems to be justifying when he says “I cannot therefore, I submit, be justly rebuked or censured if the time which others spend in advancing their own personal affairs, taking holidays and attending Games, indulging in pleasures of various kinds . . . the time they spend on protracted parties and gambling and playing ball, proves in my case to have been taken up with returning over and over again to these literary pursuits” (396). This is not evidence of someone with a utilitarian view of reading. Cicero was a person who practiced the liberal arts and he saw reading as a liberal art. It was something that was an end in itself.

To Censor or not to Censor

Plato bans the poets from the ideal state in his Republic because he believes that dramatic poetry will corrupt the morals of the people. He thinks that the poets have “a terrible power to corrupt even the best characters, with very few exceptions” (Plato 203). He provides an example to prove his point. He tells how we enjoy the free exercise of emotions in attending a dramatic performance, but we would restrain from doing this in our personal life. For example, we would admire a man acting “womanish” in a play, but in real life we would react with disgust to a man acting this way. Plato thinks that allowing our emotions a free reign in attending a dramatic performance will make it “difficult to restrain our feelings in our own” life (204).

            In some sense, Aristotle agrees that the poets could have a negative influence on morals. He thinks this applies more to comedy than tragedy and epic poetry. For example he states, comedy “is an imitation of people of a lower sort, though not in respect to every vice; rather, what is ridiculous is part of what is ugly” (Aristotle 25). In addition, he thinks the spectacle “is the component most foreign to the art and least inherent in poetry” (29). It is the least important of the different means “to draw the soul” (29). In contrast, he thinks tragedy and epic poetry can have a positive impact on the soul. He gives the following definition of tragedy: “Tragedy, then is an imitation of an action of serious stature and complete, having magnitude, in language made pleasing in distinct forms in its separate parts, imitating people acting and not using narration, accomplishing by means of pity and fear the cleansing of these states of feeling” (26). This definition provides positive characterization of tragedy. First, it dramatizes a serious action that has magnitude, beauty, and is pleasing because of its skill. Second, by means of pity and fear, it cleanses the feelings of the soul.

            It seems that both Aristotle and Plato admire the skill of Homer. Socrates tells Glaucon: “you may agree with them that Homer is the best of the poets and the first of tragedians” (204). At the least, Plato is saying that Homer is a poet of great skill. Second, he acknowledges the influence Homer has on people, even himself. Socrates asserts, “let us freely admit that if drama and poetry written for pleasure can prove to us that they have a place in a well-run society, we will gladly admit them for we know their fascination only too well ourselves” (204). Plato is saying that he would love to have the poets in the city, but because of the possibility of the corruption of morals, the poets must be banned. He does, however, leave the option of the poets defending poetry in prose “and proving that she doesn’t only give pleasure but brings lasting benefit to human life and human society” (205). This seems similar to the common argument that literature should delight and inform.

            Plato’s argument that the poets must defend themselves in prose is ironical. It reminds me of some of the comments made by Scott Cairns in his interview with Ken Myers. He acknowledges that poetry is both content and form. Cairns said that people look at words in two different ways. One way sees words as transparencies because you look through them to the ideas they present. In other words, you can describe the ideas in prose. Leland Ryken argues against this idea in his article on the classics. These ideas will look like a “collection of lifeless platitudes” (Ryken 8). He states that many of the ideas in Shakespeare's plays could have been written by a mediocre writer. C. S. Lewis thought reducing literature to its ideas “is an outrage to the thing the poet has made for us” (Ryken 9). The second perspective is that words are opaque, things in and of themselves. So, according to this second way of looking at words, the poets cannot look through their words to get to the ideas behind the words.

            Both Aristotle and Plato saw certain vices in the poets. They both admired the skill of Homer. Plato even remarked that Homer had a certain power over them. Aristotle, however, saw the usefulness in tragedy and epic poetry. Aristotle even thought that the poets could produce wonder and that this was “the mark that is end at which the art itself aims” (62). One might even say that through pity and fear, poetry humanizes us. Plato seems to emphasize the harm that the poets could cause; while, Aristotle emphasizes how poetry benefits us. It seems Plato, like the modern sensor, says if there is anything bad in the book, get rid of it. In contrast, Aristotle says keep the book if there is any good in it.