[ Home | Contents | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Iansito
Date: 10/30/99
Time: 5:31:31 PM
Remote Name: 12.78.96.148
The arguments put forth in this chapter are diametrically opposed but both parties use hermeneutics as a means of defense, before resorting to attacks ad hominem. Essentially, the question over the "poverty" of Christ, as William points out, is not the primary focus. It is, however, the question over the power of the church in an economic and thus politico-ideological sense. Both Ubertino and Jean d'Anneaux argue in Aristotelian fashion as to the proper interpretation of the Bible as support. What Eco seems to be portraying is the Medieval, social relevance of the debate, i.e. If Christ was poor, why should the church, or any of its offspring, be a locus of economic power? And, if the general populace were to be influenced by these "poor" monks, how would that affect the stability of the church? However, Eco is also examining the problems of interpretation and how they remark upon ideological and historical paradigms. Something similar can be gleaned from Chaucer's Tale discussed in class. That is, the text becomes not only a structure upon which the audience can interpret its own social significance and position in a particular hierarchy, but the text (and interpretation) becomes a site of contestation as well. Strangely enough, both Chaucer's and Eco's work speak, on the surface, of social and ideological conflicts, while, at the same time, indicting the texts and the processes of interpretation used to support or refute those claims. Perhaps for this reason, both works are shrouded in either humorous debate or succumb to outright chaos.