<< dear all,
as an observer, I've found the Chrysostom, anti-semitism,
mentalite etc discussion fascinating, and, I'd argue,
within the remit of the list. Medieval religion has led us
to modern religion and to modern politics because medieval
religion is not a discrete object: recent postings have
been arguing about how to define and approach medieval
religion, which seems to me to be a perfectly respectable
scholarly undertaking. I for one am grateful to all who
contributed.
Sarah Salih
>>
But I feel that a lot of the debate about St. John Chrysostom smacks of
pursuing politics through scholarly means. The charm of medieval studies is
that so much of it does not matter; I expect that I enjoy medieval literature
the way most people enjoy fantasy, except that some of my fantasies happened.
Au contraire, if Mr. A proposes that Chrysostom is a wicked man because of
his contribution to Nazi genocide, it matters; if Mr. B proposes that St.
John Chrysostom is a great saint who made no such contribution, it also
matters.
I would rather Mr. A and Mr. B return to cordial discussions of obscure
saints and the evolution of the plough. Respectfully, Dan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|