Louis Hamilton wrote:
>Conspicuoulsly absent (to my recollection) from this discussion has been
>R. I. Moore's _Formation of a Persecuting Society_, I wonder why? Do
>members not like it? His thesis, to oversimplify, is that in the early
>middle ages theres is nothing like widespread abuse of Jews, in fact
>Jews and Christians got along w/out incident, that it was only in the 13th
>c. that persecution of the Jews becomes endemic in western Europe. Along
>with this cam harsher treatment for lepers, gays, and women as well. Why?
>Because in the 13th c. The Church was trying to define more precisely the
>body of believers, who was in and who was out and so, inadvertantly, singled
>out certain groups as targets for ostricization and persecution. I should
>add that he does not see the church as alone in this process, that the Church
>is one of many political communities trying to centralize their authority
>by defining their members more precisely (so, too, France, HRE, England, etc
>all see increased perseuctions).
>I have some serious reservations about the book, but I find it a useful
>model, does anyone have an opinion or could improve my rough summary?
>
I too am surprised by the absence, particularly as I find it a tasty
thesis. I would like to clarify, however, that Moore does not present an
entirely rosy world of toleration in pre-12th century Europe. His main
point is that it is only in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries that
intolerance becomes heavily *institutionalized* which is an important
distinction. The idea is that the creation of the "other" was one of the
steps in the formation of a European identity. Furthermore, by defining
and becoming concerned with various groups "otherness" they became more
apparent, hence the deluge of heretical menaces and the alarming number of
lepers (in an age when many conditions could be called leprousy).
Although I am a fan of the thesis, I must admit that some of his supporting
points are not entirely convincing. Nevertheless, I find Moore's work is
historiographically important since he puts issues like medieval
anti-semitism (or "Jew hatred") in a larger and more illuminating context.
Has he fallen deeply out of favour, or is he so old hat that he's not worth
mentioning anymore? Surely I am not the only person on the list who had
her view of the evolution of medieval society shaped by his ideas!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Nicole Morgan Schulman Omittamus studia dulce est desipere,
Dept. of History, U. of Toronto et carpamus dulcia iuventutis tenere!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|