Toleration and Tolerance in Medieval European Literature
Page 33
Abelard was not the only philosopher of his time to embrace such an open-minded concept about the relationship between religions, if we think, for instance, of Gilbert of Poitiers (after 1085–1154), but his dialog treatise serves exceedingly well for us today to grasp the true extent to which the so-called ‘Twelfth-Century Renaissance’ was not only a time characterized by explorations of new philosophical, scientific, medical, artistic, and literary dimensions, but also a time of opening up of traditional boundaries in theology and epistemology.23
Ramon Llull
While Abelard can be described as an early proponent of toleration, still struggling with some of the basics of interreligious debates, exploring preliminarily how rationality might help in the global discourse among the representatives of the three world religions, and giving complete preference to a philosophical explanation of the divine, the Catalan Ramon Llull certainly made additional and also highly noteworthy efforts to build bridges to the other faiths, allowing many different representatives to speak up. Born in Palma, capital of Majorca, about 1232, that is, almost one hundred years after Abelard’s death in 1142, Llull worked tirelessly to develop Catalan literature, to introduce philosophy into the religious discourse, and to reach out to Muslims, above all.
Llull’s father had arrived in Majorca with the conquering army of King James I of Catalonia, and he might have been of noble origin. Ramon was associated with the court and seems to have composed love poetry in the vein of the troubadours, which he later rejected and deeply regretted, as mirrored in his Book of Contemplation. In 1257, Llull married Blanca Picany, served as tutor to James II of Aragon, and later became seneschal (the administrative head of the royal household) to the future King James II of Majorca, a relative of his wife. Until 1263, he was much dedicated to the pleasures of courtly love, had erotic affairs, and composed secular love poems in Catalan. But then he experienced an epiphany, having multiple visions of Christ on the cross, which turned his life entirely around, inducing him to leave his family and turn to the Church, becoming a Franciscan tertiary. He also realized that he had to learn Arabic in order to reach out to the Muslim population and to convert them, if possible, to Christianity. For nine years, until 1274, he dedicated himself to the study of Arabic, to Christian and Muslim philosophy and theology, and began to compose learned treatises, such as a compendium of the Muslim thinker Al-Ghazali’s logic (first he wrote it in Arabic, the copy of which is lost today, then translated it into Latin, and later into Catalan as Lógica del Gatzel) and the Llibre de contemplació en Déu (Book on the Contemplation of God, also first written in Arabic), a guide book on how to reach truth through contemplation, which he subsequently extended by composing his Art Abreujada d’Atrobar Veritat (1290; The Abbreviated Art of Finding Truth). Due to the lack of reception, he developed it further, concluding with his Ars generalis ultima or Ars magna (1305; The Ultimate General Art).
Rather like Abelard, but relying much more on Arabic philosophy, Llull here outlined ways on how to reach out to Muslims and to convince them through logical arguments to abandon their faith and to convert to Christianity. Obviously influenced by contemporary (Arabic) astrology and necromancy, the author included numerous figures and divined mechanical systems for the reader to reach deeper insights into the ultimate religious truths. He assumed that all three monotheistic religions relied on a foundational set of basic values, or virtues: Goodness, greatness, eternity, power, wisdom, will, virtue, truth, and glory. Hence, he argued that in essence, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam shared those principles and could agree on them quite easily. In other words, for him, there were enough shared elements for the representatives of those religions to be able to talk to each other and to establish a shared premise from which differences could slowly be overcome, ultimately, of course, leading to the conversion to Christianity. There was no deeper sense of tolerance in Llull’s works, but we can detect strong elements of toleration, as our close analysis of one of his central texts will indicate.
Since 1283, Llull spent time in Montpellier studying medicine, but also writing his courtly novel Blaquerna. He was also the first to develop the idea of the Virgin Mary’s ‘immaculate conception’. Most importantly, however, he strongly advocated the study of Arabic in Christian Europe in order to support missionary work. He himself traveled to Tunis in 1285, but was expelled. In 1304, he made a second effort and wrote numerous letters to the king of Tunis, but details escape us. In 1308, he was in Northern Africa again, and by that time, he was determined to establish the study of Arabic at Christian centers of higher learning for missionary purposes. Upon his urging, in 1311, the Council of Vienne ordered the creation of chairs of Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldean (Aramaic) at the universities of Bologna, Oxford, Paris, and Salamanca, as well as at the Papal Court. In 1314, Llull took his last trip to the Arab world, but was stoned by an angry crowd in the city of Bougie. Genoese merchants rescued him and took him back to Majorca, where he died in Palama the following year or early in 1316. Uniquely, around 1311, monks of Vauvert, south of Paris, received Llull’s approval—who was in Paris at that time—to write a kind of biography of him, a Vita coaetanea, or Contemporary Life.
Most importantly, Llull fervently advocated his own strategy to reach out to Muslims not by force, but by prayer, by communicating in their own language, by listening to their philosophers and mathematicians, and hence by paying them long-overdue respect and acknowledging their intellectual accomplishments. Undoubtedly, Llull fought all of his life for the triumph of Christianity, but just as Abelard, he was deeply convinced that the conversion to his own religion had to happen on a voluntary basis.24
Llull’s Book of the Gentile, probably composed in its Catalan original25 between 1274 and 1276, has survived in a large number of manuscripts and also in several translations, such as into Latin, French, and Spanish.26 While it has been the subject of much previous research, it will serve our purposes exceedingly well to confirm in more details how much medieval theologians were rather prepared, under certain circumstances, to enter into dialogue with other religions and grant them some free space for formulating their own ideas and concepts regarding the true faith. The very willingness to explore such issues in exchange with Muslims, Jews, and other representatives of various faiths already in the pre-modern world can be identified as an early form of toleration, just as in the case of Abelard.27 Whenever a writer resorts to the genre of dialogue, new perspectives emerge, and different opinions are presented, which all lay the foundation of communication across faith barriers, already in the pre-modern world.28
Llull himself states from the start that his purpose consists of demonstrating the absolute truth of the Christian faith and the errors of all other religions (110). He wants to use his book as a platform to develop a new method of convincing and converting heathens and pagans, so there is no specific indication of toleration, not to speak of tolerance here. However, just as in the case of Abelard’s dialogue treatise, Llull opens the floor also for a Jew and a Muslim to speak, each one trying to defend his own faith. Nevertheless, the premise is clear: All this will be of no avail since he himself will “prove that God exists, that in Him are contained the flowers of the first tree, and that the Resurrection exists” (111). Of course, considering the time frame, the absolute dominance of the Catholic Church, and Llull’s position, not much else could be expected. But, just as in the case of Abelard, here we do not come across a dogmatic treatise by itself, and instead the author leaves open many opportunities for representatives of other faiths.
Llull begins his narrative with a Gentile who is a forlorn individual deeply humbled by the thoughts of death and the end of all life without hope, irrespective of all the material, natural beauty surrounding him. The narrator takes this poor creature to an idyllic nature environment, here a lane, relying more or less on the trope of a locus amoenus, but he uses it to create a setting where a debate can develop. By happenstance, three men arrive at the same place, one a Christian, the second
a Jew, and the third a Saracen. Significantly, they greet each other in a friendly fashion, pay respect, and agree to form a company because they realize that they all have overexerted themselves in scholarly studies. They are identified as wise men and as teachers, although they all adhere to different faiths. Nevertheless, in Llull’s projection, this does not prevent them from exchanging opinions in a tolerant fashion, while walking together until they have reached the same path through the forest the gentile is using. There they encounter the allegorical figure ‘Intelligence’ who is surrounded by five trees. On all of the leaves, statements are written addressing the various types of virtues as mirrors of God, and they serve as tools to teach those who do not have any belief and do not know about God, to embrace the fundamentals virtues, “to love, know, fear, and serve God” (115).
Once the lady has left them, they agree to probe the possibility to achieve harmony among themselves, to unify under one faith, since there is only one god (116). They believe that they might achieve that goal by means of their intelligence and reason, while any traditional authorities, i.e. Scriptures, would only divide them (116). In other words, the issue would be, once again, the difference between the three major religions, but those are not to be discussed in theological but in rational terms. Rationality, however, requires free space, mutual respect, and honoring the individuality of the respective other, and hence a certain degree of toleration.
Once the gentile has joined them, filled with deep grief over the presumed meaningless of all life, the three wise men decide to teach him all they know about God, that is, “His goodness, greatness, eternity, power, wisdom, love and perfection” (118), and combine this with a message about the promise of resurrection.
For our purposes, we do not need to follow the specific arguments proposed by the individual wise men, regarding eternity, power, wisdom, love, perfection, etc. In a way, they all basically agree with each other with respect to the universal ideals developed here and indirectly demonstrate to the gentile that the three religions, when perceived in light of the teaching of virtues, do not differ in their fundamental concepts from each other. So, we learn, for instance, that love and fortitude complement each other and produce courtesy and good manners. God, then, is the greatest lover of them all, favoring the good over evil (131).
According to the messages on the third tree, the wise man can teach the lessons of the seven deadly sins (132–36). The fourth tree addresses other virtues, such as faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, and so forth. But, once those aspects have been laid out and explained, without meeting any disagreement, the gentile realizes that those three wise men represent very different religions and, thus, are, after all, diametrically opposed to each other, which makes him even more distraught than he was before. Hence, he begs them to debate their faiths before him and, thus, to allow him to make his own choice. But insofar as the three wise men respect each other so much, no one wants to take the initiative and push the others aside. This forces the gentile to appoint the Jew to begin because his religion is the oldest (149). The Jew agrees with that, but he requests that they do not raise objections while each one would make his case, thus allowing each one to explain his religions fully at first. Consequently, Llull predicates his debate as a forum where each person enjoys the same privileges, and everyone listens carefully and politely to the arguments brought forth. Impressively for Llull and the historical context, he allows the Jew conclude his presentation with these remarks: “‘We have proved and demonstrated how the Jewish people have a true religion and are on the path of truth by the way we have made our articles accord with the flowers of the trees and with their conditions …’” (190).
Next, the Christian presents his faith, and apart from the concept of ‘trinity’ (193–96), he addresses very much the same values and virtues, such as love, wisdom, perfection, charity, goodness, prudence, but then also pride and avarice, only to revert to virtues again, such as faith, hope, justice, prudence, fortitude, and subsequently vices again. But he also mentions Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection and ultimately insists on having the better, the only true religion in contrast to the Jew and the Saracen because he believes in the Trinity of God and Christ’s Incarnation (257).
Finally, the Saracen, or Muslim, has his turn, and he is granted equal time and respect in this debate. Abelard did not include a Muslim in his Dialogue, so Llull takes a bolder approach. He describes in detail how thoroughly the wise man washes himself in preparation for his prayer, and then has him explain that he believes “in one God; Creator; Mohammed is Prophet; the Koran is the law given by God…” (258). He also believes in Resurrection and the Day of Judgment and rejects the Christian notion of the Holy Trinity. At that point, the Christian wise man wants to inject and defend his religion, but the gentile blocks him and reminds him of their agreement to let each speak his full term without interruption, except that he, the gentile, can raise questions (260). Llull, thus, guarantees, even within the fictional framework, free space for the Muslim and makes sure that he can fully develop his own argument. This also includes a lengthy explanation about the origin of the Qu’ran, which Mohammed, who was illiterate and uneducated, created with God’s help (263). The Saracen goes on to underscore that the prophet excelled through his “greatness of wisdom and humility” (264).
The gentile injects, however, that Christ was the son of God, hence, Islam cannot be a true religion, which does not exactly follow from what the Saracen had presented and simply serves Llull to ensure that he can, after all, pursue a Christian teaching, irrespective of the statements by the Jew and the Muslim. Significantly, subsequently, the wise man continues and engages in a lengthy discussion of the fundamental values of his religion, which prove to be almost identical with those of the two companions. After all, he also addresses virtues such as perfection, justice, wisdom, charity, and prudence, and then vices such as envy, ire (anger), and pride. He concludes with his argument by insisting that he has proven his religion to be the true one, and yet, after he has closed his book, he greets his two companions respectfully (293).
Significantly, the gentile then summarizes everything he has heard and learned from the three wise men without given any of them his preference, although the former are very pleased with this outcome, which leaves the final decision open (294), except that the gentile then formulates in a prayer his great devotion to God and highlights what power, wisdom, and love rests in Him, asking for His grace and blessing, without indicating whether he means all this in the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim fashion (295). He outlines the seven deadly sins in order to remind himself of what to avoid in the future (298) and then is about to announce which religion he would choose for himself when he sees two of his countrymen arrive, who are equally lost in their faith as he was before he had met the three wise men. They, however, then decide to leave and not to await the promulgation, which surprises the gentile greatly, but he has to learn what amounts to a declaration of an early form of tolerance: “in order for each to be free to choose his own religion, they preferred not knowing which religion he would choose” (300). For them, as for any good intellectual, both then and today, reason should rule, and this also in matters of religion; hence, they do not want to be influenced by the gentile’s decision and hope to reach agreement amongst themselves regarding the right faith.
Nevertheless, one of the wise men says to the others that they had already agreed on the fact that there is only one god, whom they all should honor, and that they should all love each other and follow the same religious rules (301). The second wise man, however, points out that virtually all people are deeply associated with their traditional faith and could not be swayed, even by the best rational argument, to abandon that and to accept a new faith based on rational arguments presented to them. The third wise man basically agrees with him, but he adds that most people are determined by materialism and lack in religious devotion to God, disregarding mostly their own neighbors: “they therefore care little about de
stroying falsehood and error” (302). Although they are afraid of suffering and dying, their small minds make them immune to all reasonable advice and teachings regarding the right path toward God. Consequently, God does not bestow the virtue upon the people that would help them from avoiding error and illusions. So, most people would be subject to damnation to Hell and would not find their way toward their soul’s salvation (303).
Significantly, once the three wise men have reached the city gate where they had met before, they exchange most amicable and polite words, acknowledging each other as highly respectful individuals, and they apologize if they might have spoken badly about the others’ religions. In fact, despite their disagreement about the true religion, they express great respect for the faith each one of them had presented and, thus, begin to embrace, literally, an early form of toleration, which indicates a growing sense of tolerance insofar as they even agree further to meet again regularly and to continue debating their subject matter “according to the manner the Lady of Intelligence showed us” (303). Their goal remains, and it is their strong conviction, that ultimately they will find the path toward the one and true religion they all can accept, which would make them into friends and servants to each other. The real cause for the tensions among the various religions is not, as they spell out, religious issues, but “war, turmoil, ill will, injury, and shame” (303).