Viva amicitia

I have been quite busy, and thus the lack of posts. Aside from some teaching at my parish (which I have thoroughly enjoyed) I have been busy both reading and writing. I am finishing two essays for publication, one on Richard Hooker, his use of the Pseudo-Dionysius, and his understanding of what it means that “God hath deified our nature (a phrase he uses in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity); and the other on the Florentine Protestant Reformer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and his political theology, especially as it pertains to his anthropology; viz.,  what is the nature of the citizen in Vermigli’s thought? This brings in all sorts of matters about the nature of virtue, what is the first republic (which Vermigli properly identifies as the family), and what is the end of “natural man.” He has some rather good thoughts on the relationship of the contemplative and active lives, but he comes at it almost wholly from the perspective of the civic humanist, a much fraught phrase, and at the moment a term separating historians who lean more to Locke and those who lean more to a social-democrat and leftist model of government.

I have also reviewed three books: Zuidema’s on Vermigli’s Eucharist thought as part of the centrality of his theology, the essays on Faust as l’homme Renaissance, finally tonight just got done a review on a collection of essays on Marsilio Ficino, a fifteenth century Florentine Platonist. He was a man of some moment, an influence on both John Colet and Desiderius Erasmus (though seemingly not at all on Machiavelli), and of course also on Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the man responsible for convincing Lorenzo de Medici to bring Savonarola to Florence (Ficino was no fan of the friar).

Apart from that, I have been trying to get to a translation of Vermigli’s Latin commentary on Romans (I am supposed to do chapters 6-8, about 300 pages in all). This will only get done over my sabbatical, which I hope is next year. I also am working on a paper with a working title of Reading Richard Hooker through the eyes of Henri de Lubac.

On Monday evening I had the happy opportunity to have at my house some 18 men, each accomplished to some degree or another in their fields, all well read, with two of them priests, two Presbyterian ministers, and twelve others who were professors or teachers, and three who were students still. Some remained till 2:30 speaking about a great number of things. Good colleagues and grand comradery are singular blessings from God. My confessor commented on this to me today, that I have what is a broad group of men who are my friends off of whom I can bounce any number of items. Some of the most important of these were not even there (in particular my oldest if not dearest friend, Gary Hafer). One of the matters that C. S. Lewis spoke about in his Four Loves is the whole matter of the conspiratorial nature of friendship, for friends separate themselves from the herd and mass by dint of standing shoulder-to-shoulder in how they see something (or, like Roland and Oliver, back-to-back against the enemy). Friends, Cicero said, are like other selves. By this he did not mean that friendship is some exercise in Narcissism, but that our friends reflect us, and through them we can attain that which by ourselves we are incapable to do. Further, as Lewis noted, by myself I am incapable of calling forth the whole man. There is something in William that only Mark can elicit; there is something in Gary that only Sascha can bring out; by myself I cannot call out the whole man. Friendship is thus not a jealous love, but the most liberal. If a friend is jealous, I doubt friendship.

Friendship, in keeping with its liberality, invites new friends in, but only, again as Lewis notes, if they can maintain themselves as real friends, and not interlopers. Friends aren’t friends for the benefits of self: I am not a friend to anyone for what they can do for me, even if they can indeed do wonderful things for me. This past year I interviewed someone for a post at an institution. This candidate effused with excitement to be teaching Cicero. So, I asked, what he thought about Cicero’s notion that friendship had no utility. This brought an immediate response that in his day Cicero had slaves to meet his needs and that such a view was one that bespoke repression and betrayed Cicero’s privileged status. We need things from our friends. Such a politicization of the text, of course immediately excluded this candidate from any further consideration. It also told me that this dude had not really given much thought either to friendship or to love. Thus when new friends arrive, we don’t greet them with mercenary intent, but as the blessed in Dante say, “here comes another to augment our love.”

Finally, friendship is conspiratorial. Not that we were planning anything on my back deck that get us brought up on sedition, but that we see things differently. I don’t think there was a man there who took the Great Tradition for granted. Admittedly, we weren’t all agreed as to what this necessarily entailed (again, some were Orthodox, some were Catholic, some Prot), but we all agreed to its vital necessity if our republic is to survive. Thus, I guess for some we would be seditious: defamers of the gods of progress and blasphemers against the dogma of social justice.

Viva amicitia!!

Advertisements

About Cyril Jenkins

Professor of History
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Viva amicitia

  1. Pingback: Orthodox Collective

  2. Billy says:

    Surprised Aristotle’s Ethics didn’t get any mention in this post. Though, I suppose talk of friendship as Second self and liberality as a mean between extremes is a good summary of his thought on the highest level of friendship.

    Sorry I had to miss the gathering, but great post on friendship. MY Anglican heart is warmed by seeing C.S, Lewis referenced in an Orthodox’s posts. 😉

    Thinking about friendship and the Great Tradition it is difficult not to think of that Tradition’s founding; a group of men with a conspiracy to turn the world on its head, led by the God-Man, who called them “friends”. (Jn. 15)

  3. marcusjosephus says:

    Gary,

    Deo Gratias for this most gracious post. I have been a devotee of the Inklings for many years and often refer to our group as “THE STINKLINGS”. There are similarities. My wife gets a kick out of the name as do several Cloistered Carmelite Nuns who are lovers of the Inklings and their spirit.

    The Inkling spirit is both affectionate and properly critical. No one can properly provoke me as this group. My view(s) can be called into question, beat about the head and shoulders and discarded as chaff, yet it is never personal or disagreeable. St. Augustine languished that he “won too many arguments than was good for me.” I rather enjoy have my thinking critiqued and adjusted, especially by the crew mentioned above. It always reamins in good hands and comes back much the better.

    Since you mention Lewis and THE FOUR LOVES, my favorite quote from that book and indeed my favorite on friendship comes from its pages.

    “In a perfect Friendship this Appreciative love is, I think, often so great and so firmly based that each member of the circle feels, in his secret heart, humbled before the rest. Sometimes he wonders what he is doing there among his betters. He is lucky beyond desert to be in such company. Especially when the whole group is together; each bringing out all that is best, wisest, or funniest in all the others. Those are the golden sessions; when four or five of us after a hard day’s walk have come to our inn; when our slippers are on, our feet spread out toward the blaze and our drinks are at our elbows; when the whole world, and something beyond the world, opens itself to our minds as we talk; and no one has any claim on or any responsibility for another, but all are freemen and equals as if we had first met an hour ago, while at the same time an Affection mellowed by the years enfolds us. Life — natural life — has no better gift to give. Who could have deserved it?”

    THE FOUR LOVES is better yet when it is read to you by Lewis with his gravely voice. I have a a version converted to CD from old tapes of the Original Broadcast.

  4. “God hath deified our nature” – I don’t recall this in Hooker’s Laws, but when I read it my hearing was not tuned to the Tradition. Interesting! Having been Anglican and now Orthodox, I see many more points of contact than I recognized before.

    My Philosophy students are reading and discussing Mere Christianity. The Discussion Questions are available for anyone to use here: http://lcaspanish.blogspot.com/

  5. Cyril Jenkins says:

    Alice, thanks so much for your link and your questions. The citation is from Lawes, V.54.5. He has a lot to say about it, but is somewhat confusing in that he is trying to align certain Dionysian/Platonic notions with his clearly Protestant adherence to imputed righteousness.

  6. Thanks, Cyril.

    Good thoughts here on friendship. I’ve been blessed to have a few close friends and I don’t take them for granted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s