List, and especially David Landes and RI Moore: Two questions.
Can it can be shown that medieval heresy or divergent thought was always
or necessarily precipitated by poverty or by a deteriorating economic or
social position? As in the case of the theory of modern revolutions,
could it not have been the opposite, namely an expression of hostility to
the burdensome economic regulation of the "orthodox" church on the part of
a growing economic group or community? Although he overstated his case,
Raoul Nelli once proposed that the Cathars were ideal economic individuals
and proto-capitalists. Besies, the Cathars I have dealt with were of
every class and level of wealth, and, if the poor were surely
underpresented in the available evidence (which they always are), there
was certainly a heavy concentration of the wealthy among them.
Besides, although many adherents of divergent religions or beliefs sprang
from the radical wings of the so-called Gregorian reformation, one wonders
if that is true of them all. Were they all necessarily devoted to an
"apostolic" vision of the church or even intentionally "reformist" in a
religious sense? Could not some merely have wanted to express their
worries and interests in formats different or freed from those established
by reigning orthodoxy? And have built movements or cells sharing their
ideas? Obviously, it is too early to expect movements similar to those of
modern secular religions or ideologies, but should one not look for those
who wanted to experiment or play around with the options available at that
time?
John Mundy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|