11 Comments

Would it be correct to say that Creation is a sort of symbol that invites us to enter into the mystery of God?

Expand full comment
author

In my opinion, absolutely! Hugh of St. Victor, a highly influential theologian of the High Middle Ages, expressed precisely this idea in a quote that I will discuss in a future article.

Expand full comment
Oct 27Liked by Robert Keim

I just happened to read this in a book by the famous Orthodox theologian Alexander Schemann (The Eucharist):

The reasons for this lie in the fact that "symbol" here designates something not only distinct from reality but in essence even contrary to it. Further on we shall see that the specifically western, Roman Catholic emphasis on the "real presence" of Christ in the eucharistic gifts grew primarily out of a fear that this presence would be degraded into the category of the "symbolic." But this could only happen when the word "symbol" ceased to designate something real and became in fact the antithesis of reality. In other words, where one is concerned with "reality" there is no need for a symbol, and, conversely, where there is a symbol there is no reality. This led to the understanding of the liturgical symbol as an "illustration," necessary only to the extent that what is represented is not "real."

Expand full comment
author

Very interesting, and yes, western culture and theology does tend to create more of an opposition between symbol and reality, though I would say that this distinction was less intense during the Middle Ages than it was in the more rationalistic/empiricist mindset of the modern period.

Expand full comment
Oct 28Liked by Robert Keim

Yes, I took it more as a critique of post-enlightenment Western Christianity, but in my reading Schmemann is extremely harsh on Roman Catholicism in general and paints with too broad a brush.

Expand full comment
Oct 27Liked by Robert Keim

Do you have any recommendations for books about medieval symbolic culture?

Expand full comment
author

I'm not familiar with any books dedicated specifically to medieval symbolic culture. Knowledge that I have gained from secondary sources came somewhat piecemeal from scholarship on various related topics. Here are a few suggestions:

The Meaning of Blue (https://angelicopress.com/products/the-meaning-of-blue?srsltid=AfmBOorXwWkN6LVhZ9dUa26ipkpagrYlnJJcUyXSxT9FlKNPinhPewd6)

The Symbolism of Medieval Churches (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429399091/symbolism-medieval-churches-mark-spurrell)

Part 1 of Allegorical Poetics and the Epic: The Renaissance Tradition to Paradise Lost (https://books.google.com/books?id=vNEeBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Only the Lover Sings (https://ignatius.com/only-the-lover-sings-olsp/)

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment
Oct 28Liked by Robert Keim

Paul Zumthor is still the main reference for the more recent scholarly debate. In particular (I'm sure he's widely available in English as well):

• Essai de poétique médiévale (1972);

• Langue, texte, énigme (1975);

• La Lettre et la Voix (1987).

A groundbreaking work was:

• Figura (1938), by Erich Auerbach; still quoted in every single discussion on medieval symbolism.

Expand full comment
Oct 27Liked by Robert Keim

These guiding principles are so relevant, especially in relation to biblical typology. Knowing symbols mostly from fictional literature, like you say, the biblical types just seemed too good to be true. I found this on wiki, (source link broken) "Typology is also a theory of history, seeing the whole story of the Jewish and Christian peoples as shaped by God, with events within the story acting as symbols for later events. In this role, God is often compared to a writer, using actual events instead of fiction to shape his narrative."

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for this comment, and yes, biblical typology is the archetype of fictional symbolism and one of the keys to experiencing the Bible as a work of (divinely inspired and perfectly true) literature.

Expand full comment