Yes, I read the Pearl and Gawain. I studied with Sherman Kuhn and read
Medieval Intellectual history with John Sommerfeldt who started the
Medieval Institute. We all read Medieval at one point in American literary
education didn't we? There are broad themes and assumptions one can
find in the Middle Ages. There is not a single way of thinking.
I do not think this a very fruitful debate.
Date sent: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:59:50 EST
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Medieval Thinking
To: [log in to unmask]
In a message dated 4/3/03 7:01:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Since my reply to this seemed to evoke confusion, I am replying again.
> "Most great Medieval thinkers" is so vast a set that I do not think any
> valid claim can possibly be made about them. Is this early and late
> Medieval? All countries? Mystics and all others? Chaucer? My point is
> that humans vary immensely in their ideas in all times and places.
From Boethius (the last classical thinker and first medieval thinker)
through at Least Chaucer [and so maybe I am abandoning the very late
Middle Ages] there is a mode of thinking [at least partially, if not
greatly influenced by Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Mystics] that the act
of copulation is created by God to demonstrate to humans how divinity
works. 1+1=3 is a kind of Kabbalistic mantra -- there is always something
more there. This is why Dante is so Vehemently anti-homosexual and
anti-usurist. Homosexuals cannot make a third from their couple and
Usurers make something from an inanimate object (money). This thread
through Medieval literature (at least Medieval English and Italian and
Provencal literature), just read _The Pearl_ or _Sir Gawain and the Green