Joona Salminen defended his doctoral thesis titled as Ascetism and Early Christian Lifestyle on March at the University of Helsinki.
As custos acted Prof. Risto Saarinen (left) and as opponent Doc. Eric Eliasson from Stockholm (right).
Lectio praecursoria
‘Monkeys do not laugh’
Ascetics in search for Aristotle
Regarding guidelines of Christian asceticism, Italian author Umberto Eco creates a particularly dimensional scene in his novel The Name of the Rose (originally Il nome della rosa, 1980). The novel is a detective story set in an Italian monastery, in the year 1327. In addition to many murder mysteries, the narrative also includes several intellectual mysteries and sophisticated discussions on various philosophical and political topics. In this lectio I will elaborate on one scene in particular, the one in which the protagonist discusses laughter with an old blind monk who is in charge of the library of the monastery. On the basis of my studies on early Christian asceticism, I find that discussion extremely intriguing and inspiring. (Btw, there’s also a film adaptation of the scene available via YouTube, in case you wish to see Sean Connery having that discussion.)
The protagonist of the novel, a Franciscan friar called William of Baskerville, arrives to a North Italian monastery to take part in a certain theological debate. Soon after his arrival, he and his young apprentice are introduced to the scriptorium of the monastery. There they spot a manuscript with rather bold illustrations and encounter the old blind monk with whom William debates several times whether Christ laughed or not. Hagiographies, Aristotle, and the Scripture play a significant role in these discussions between the two ascetics, one from the Benedictine order, which is a monastic tradition, and the other from a late medieval mendicant order, the order of St. Francis. These traditions have different attitudes towards laughter even though they have many things in common, as well.
The arguments of the debate can be simplified as follows:
- The old blind monk combines biblical arguments to an eschatological view and defends the Rule of St. Benedict that prohibits laughter from monks. He highlights that laughter is not good for one’s spirituality and that Christ never laughed.
- William, on the other hand, points out that hagiographies contain humour, funny stories and entertaining material. He makes a reference to Pseudo-Dionysius and Hugh of St. Victor who teach that God can be known through various images and even imaginary things.
In their first conversation, a third interlocutor steps in and reminds the old blind monk that only a few days ago they had had a very learned discussion about knowing God through unconventional and even ridiculous things. This brother happened to be a Greek translator and an expert on Aristotle. He was convinced that what he said was also in lines with Aristotle’s argumentation. The old blind monk is not pleased; and later, spoiler alert, the translator is found dead. The setting of the scene is research wise very intriguing.
In The Name of The Rose, the key to the mystery is that the old blind monk had poisoned the manuscript. This is why everyone who had touched Aristotle’s Second Book of Poetics on Comedy was found dead. The old monk did not only consider philosophy to be dangerous – he made it lethal. He was furious about the conversation on laughter and highlights that laughter makes humans look ridiculous, like monkeys. ‘Monkeys do not laugh,’ says William who thinks that laughter is a sign of rationality and shows good judgement in some occasions. In the movie version the discussion is shortened but in the novel, the old monk makes a reference to Clement of Alexandria’s treatise on laughter in the second book of Paedagogus in which Clement recommends avoiding excessive laughter. This remark calls for a comment, since I devote a whole chapter for Clement’s treatise on laughter in my dissertation.
In his treatise, Clement makes use of Aristotle’s view on laughter and combines it with certain biblical passages. In my studies on early Christian asceticism I was very much interested in the social setting in which Clement’s teaching takes place. For example, the context of laughter in Clement is Alexandrian high class social life with all the dinners and parties etc. The treatise on laughter is only one example of the city context that had a major influence on early Christian asceticism. Clement taught in Alexandria in the mid 190s and discussed almost every imaginable topic that later emerged in Christian asceticism. It is hard to say how later ascetics came across with his teachings but nevertheless there are striking similarities between Clement and ascetic (monastic) literature from the 4th century on. In my studies I compared Clement’s teachings especially to Vita Antonii by Athanasius and Praktikos by Evagrius Ponticus. A central theme in my studies is to highlight the continuum of certain spiritual and physical exercises and popular philosophical teachings in Clement and later ascetic authors. I also find it important to see Clement’s teachings in relation to ancient schools of philosophy and teachers such as Epictetus.
I situated ascetic instructions in an urban setting and treated them as guidelines for an early Christian lifestyle. One of my key results was to point out how contextual a phenomenon asceticism is and how early Christian asceticism started to form in a Late Ancient city context. According to my studies, asceticism is not only about social withdrawal, fasting and celibacy – it is also about community, eating and marital life. Most studies on asceticism have focused on social withdrawal but in Clement we encounter a form of asceticism with a strong integrative function.
Unlike the old blind monk in the Name of the Rose, Clement would never poison a work of Aristotle. Instead, he usually had quite a positive attitude towards pagan philosophy and made use of it in his ascetic teaching adapted for city life. So, though the old monk was aware on what Clement said about laughter, he misunderstood the role of Aristotle and other pagan philosophers regarding the matter. In later Christian asceticism this connection to philosophy became much more complicated than it is in Clement. Should the old blind monk have read Clement more carefully, he might have had a more positive attitude towards laughter and philosophy. So I remain critical of his use of Clement in the debate on laughter and ascetic life – a more nuanced understanding of Clement would have been a beneficial tool for these debates and in the ascetics’ search for Aristotle.
Joona Salminen, University of Helsinki
Lectio praecursoria, 25th March 2017
‘Monkeys do not laugh’
Ascetics in search for Aristotle
Regarding guidelines of Christian asceticism, Italian author Umberto Eco creates a particularly dimensional scene in his novel The Name of the Rose (originally Il nome della rosa, 1980). The novel is a detective story set in an Italian monastery, in the year 1327. In addition to many murder mysteries, the narrative also includes several intellectual mysteries and sophisticated discussions on various philosophical and political topics. In this lectio I will elaborate on one scene in particular, the one in which the protagonist discusses laughter with an old blind monk who is in charge of the library of the monastery. On the basis of my studies on early Christian asceticism, I find that discussion extremely intriguing and inspiring. (Btw, there’s also a film adaptation of the scene available via YouTube, in case you wish to see Sean Connery having that discussion.)
The protagonist of the novel, a Franciscan friar called William of Baskerville, arrives to a North Italian monastery to take part in a certain theological debate. Soon after his arrival, he and his young apprentice are introduced to the scriptorium of the monastery. There they spot a manuscript with rather bold illustrations and encounter the old blind monk with whom William debates several times whether Christ laughed or not. Hagiographies, Aristotle, and the Scripture play a significant role in these discussions between the two ascetics, one from the Benedictine order, which is a monastic tradition, and the other from a late medieval mendicant order, the order of St. Francis. These traditions have different attitudes towards laughter even though they have many things in common, too.
The arguments of the debate can be simplified as follows:
- The old blind monk combines biblical arguments to an eschatological view and defends the Rule of St. Benedict that prohibits laughter from monks. He highlights that laughter is not good for one’s spirituality and that Christ never laughed.
- William, on the other hand, points out that hagiographies contain humour, funny stories and entertaining material. He makes a reference to Pseudo-Dionysius and Hugh of St. Victor who teach that God can be known through various images and even imaginary things.
In their first conversation, a third interlocutor steps in and reminds the old blind monk that only a few days ago they had had a very learned discussion about knowing God through unconventional and even ridiculous things. This brother happened to be a Greek translator and an expert on Aristotle. He was convinced that what he said was also in lines with Aristotle’s argumentation. The old blind monk is not pleased; and later, spoiler alert, the translator is found dead. The setting of the scene is research wise very intriguing.
In The Name of The Rose, the key to the mystery is that the old blind monk had poisoned the manuscript. This is why everyone who had touched Aristotle’s Second Book of Poetics on Comedy was found dead. The old monk did not only consider philosophy to be dangerous – he made it lethal. He was furious about the conversation on laughter and highlights that laughter makes humans look ridiculous, like monkeys. ‘Monkeys do not laugh,’ says William who thinks that laughter is a sign of rationality and shows good judgement in some occasions. In the movie version the discussion is shortened but in the novel, the old monk makes a reference to Clement of Alexandria’s treatise on laughter in the second book of Paedagogus in which Clement recommends avoiding excessive laughter. This remark calls for a comment, since I devote a whole chapter for Clement’s treatise on laughter in my dissertation.
In his treatise, Clement makes use of Aristotle’s view on laughter and combines it with certain biblical passages. In my studies on early Christian asceticism I was very much interested in the social setting in which Clement’s teaching takes place. For example, the context of laughter in Clement is Alexandrian high class social life with all the dinners and parties etc. The treatise on laughter is only one example of the city context that had a major influence on early Christian asceticism. Clement taught in Alexandria in the mid 190s and discussed almost every imaginable topic that later emerged in Christian asceticism. It is hard to say how later ascetics came across with his teachings but nevertheless there are striking similarities between Clement and ascetic (monastic) literature from the 4th century on. In my studies I compared Clement’s teachings especially to Vita Antonii by Athanasius and Praktikos by Evagrius Ponticus. A central theme in my studies is to highlight the continuum of certain spiritual and physical exercises and popular philosophical teachings in Clement and later ascetic authors. I also find it important to see Clement’s teachings in relation to ancient schools of philosophy and teachers such as Epictetus.
I situated ascetic instructions in an urban setting and treated them as guidelines for an early Christian lifestyle. One of my key results was to point out how contextual a phenomenon asceticism is and how early Christian asceticism started to form in a Late Ancient city context. According to my studies, asceticism is not only about social withdrawal, fasting and celibacy – it is also about community, eating and marital life. Most studies on asceticism have focused on social withdrawal but in Clement we encounter a form of asceticism with a strong integrative function.
Unlike the old blind monk in the Name of the Rose, Clement would never poison a work of Aristotle. Instead, he usually had quite a positive attitude towards pagan philosophy and made use of it in his ascetic teaching adapted for city life. So, though the old monk was aware on what Clement said about laughter, he misunderstood the role of Aristotle and other pagan philosophers regarding the matter. In later Christian asceticism this connection to philosophy became much more complicated than it is in Clement. Should the old blind monk have read Clement more carefully, he might have had a more positive attitude towards laughter and philosophy. So I remain critical of his use of Clement in the debate on laughter and ascetic life – a more nuanced understanding of Clement would have been a beneficial tool for these debates and in the ascetics’ search for Aristotle.
Mr. opponent, I now call upon you, to present your critical comments on my dissertation.