"She watched a child as it died in her arms to see if its soul would leave its mouth, When she saw nothing except breath go out of its mouth she said, ' Take notice: when a person dies, one sees nothing leave its mouth except air. If I saw something else come out, I would believe that the soul is something. But now because only air has come out, I do not believe that the soul is anything.'"
Testimony of Guillemette Benet, of Ornolac
This testimony stuck out to me during my reading and I couldn't stop thinking about it all weekend. I know that I am supposed to blog about an upcoming reading however there is something I wish to discuss in particular that we didn't have time detail in class. All of these testimonies are similar in some ways, but the fascination with the soul specifically stuck out to me while reading them, particularly the testimony of Guillemette Benet. Not only is she confused by the concept of the human having a soul, a "piece" of their body that one cannot see, she is so interested in understanding it that she makes a note to look for a soul as she holds a dying child. The human body, by some, is seen as a sacred object and whenever it passes from the living to the dead it becomes unclean, bothersome, and in many cases mentally unsettling. Why is this? Why do we become so uncomfortable around dead bodies, is it because we are not around them often (if so are people that are around them regularly comfortable with them) or is there something that happens and causes them to change (in addition to being lifeless)? I know this is a morbid thing to discuss but like Ms. Benet I am curious. In Christianity we believe that there is a soul but I have never seen one. I am not doubting my faith but I can see why Guillemette concluded that there is no soul. If someone dies how else would it come out if it didn't come out of the persons mouth which would have allowed her to see the dead child's soul. But on the contrary couldn't that eerie feeling people get around dead bodies be the sensing of a soulless body? I think overall, her curiosity is what is striking about this testimony and leads me to think that the fuel for much of the heresy we read about came from the mine of curiosity. People were unsure and the church's answers weren't always clear and precise which lead to individuals, such as Guillemette to investigate on their own, coming to their own conclusions and in the eyes of the church committing heresy. What do you think, was heresy rooted in peoples curiosity and the church's persistence to control their thoughts and actions? By the way I am sorry if the post grossed anyone out, I am mentally stable and do not contemplate death and dead bodies all the time this testimony just struck me as very interesting.
This post was right up my alley, Ben. I have many of these same thoughts! One thing that you can do as a historian is actually read the complete testimony of Guillamette. The source that you have is a plethora of compilations--but we could **more time please**take the approach of reading through the actual questions and her answers (I have been able to do this in my Joan of Arc class for the inquisition records). I actually read the testimony and questions before class for G.B.--and I was moved once again by the very human element of all of these people who are testifying. In relationship to our class precisely is how to begin to separate these testimonies with what come later. Having this as a basis shows you what the struggles were in France in the thirteenth century and what the concerns were. Although I know this seems very frightening to independent speech, this really was not a concept, and as you point out Ben, this really just shows misunderstandings on a basic level, revealing differences in elite and village thoughts. At the end of the day, Gui and Fournier desired to bring people back to the church, there was a lot of 'talk back' in the records, and some of them are pretty funny too! I don't think you'll be saying the same thing as we head to the witch-hunts.' I'm glad you wanted to write on this. Sorry for hogging this spot!
ReplyDeleteBenjamin,
ReplyDeleteDuring this reading I was also intrigued by these claims of the human soul. Even today seminary and theological students struggle with answering this question so that it is not confusing. A quote I found that I really enjoy is by George MacDonald "Never tell a child 'you have a soul. Teach him, you are a soul; you have a body' ". For people of the Medieval Ages the concept of living in a physical world and a spiritual world would be unorthodox. They painted demons and angels on the roads with them so it would seem that the idea that demons and angles and souls are made up of different matter than the human body. The soul is not something you see because it is made up of the same material as God the Holy Spirit, who is also 'invisible' to our eyes. This would be heretical for people of the Medieval Ages but nonetheless, it is extremely interesting!
I really enjoyed reading your post Ben. You got pretty deep there and I can respect that. I would have to say yes I believe that a lot of these instances of "heresy" were simply instances of people being curious. There were a number of testimonies that honestly sounded to me like they were early agnostics. None of these people had seen a soul or witnessed a miracle so naturally they were curious or suspicious.
ReplyDelete