 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Dear colleagues, the following is from Nicole Schulman, who is having some temporary e-mail problems. George *** -----Original Message----- In response to Chris's comment (excerpted as follows) >Hugo Farsitus' account of the "miracles" associated with the ergot outbreak in >the Soissonais in the 1120s is the product of an obviously very well educated >(as a doctor, perhaps?) man who is, among other things, looking at the >phenomenon occuring before his eyes in a relatively dispassionate and >objective manner. > >relative to the folks who were actually witnessing the miracles and having the >visions, that is. > >but there's no trace in his narrative of any level of skepticism re the actual >validity of the miracles & visions themselves. > >this might not be the case in writings of even a century or so later. > and *also* to the other comments made thus far about the miraculous: Why shouldn't medieval people have believed in miracles? They still happen. No, I don't mean in a religious way (although many religious people still go to Lourdes etc). Remember the etymology, from "mirari"(colloquially to go Wow! How amazing!). The majority of miracles that were recorded at shrines and pilgrimage spots were generally events that still occur. Today people tend to look for "scientific" explanations to explain why people make sudden recoveries from illnesses, or see visions, or hear voices no one else hears. My point is that we, just like medieval people, seek to explain events that are not commonplace and seem strange. There are lots of such events that still happen. The big difference is the way moderns go about explaining it. And our own manner of explaining is just as much of an historical construct of course (as this list has already noted). Scientific methods of identifying and treating schizophrenia (to make an example) in the West appear to be *less* successful than "primitive" methods used by (modern-day) societies who believe, and treat, this "disease" as demonic possession. My point is not that this is demonic possession, but rather that if we apply skepticism to the methods we ourselves use to explain our world, there are still holes... yet we still believe in science and reason and all those sorts of things. I raise all of this because there is a frustrating tendency (especially in students, but "professionals" lapse into it too) to assume that because medieval people had a different conceptual framework then we do that they were making mistakes. They *ought* to have been more critical of the aspects of their society that we take issue with. You see this across the board -- people who want to see Christine de Pizan as a modern feminist, others who want to see Cola di Rienzo as possessing a proto-marxian class-consciousness, and also those who want medieval people to doubt the validity of divine miracles. As Chris pointed out, medieval people were perfectly aware (at least some were) that there was the potential for falsification of miracles. Why else have an avocatus diaboli in 13th c. investigations potential saints? Before we take a superior attitude to medieval belief, we should ask ourselves how many people today check their horoscope, have lucky numbers for the lottery, etc...? It's a human trait, I think. -- Nicole Morgan Schulman <[log in to unmask]> ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html