Rosenzweig ( Judaism Despite Christianity: The 1916 Wartime Correspondence Between Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and Franz Rosenzweig , 157) offers this profound rejoinder to the professorial habit of trying to modify the traditional epochs of history:
“It is necessary . . . to accept the traditional periods, and to avoid wanting to be ‘original’ like the professors - and like ourselves when we were still professorial. 1789, 1453, (1517), 476, (313) - these are truths, nay the essence of history, just because they are traditions. To present one’s own epoch is only possible with permanent reference to this system of coordinates of traditional historical truth.”
It’s the after-story that makes these dates critical. Whatever “actually happened” on December 31, 1517, that date inaugurates a new epoch because it was regarded as starting a new epoch. It initiated what Rosenstock calls a “body of time,” and we know that it did because people perceived that it did.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles
Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…
The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…
Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.