Larry
Just a few comments on Jerry's post.
I have only read "The Cultural Context of Deformity in the Ancient Greek World ‘Let There Be a Law That No Deformed Child Shall Be Reared’ Martha L. Edwards (Truman State University) The Ancient History Bulletin, 10.3-4 (1996)" so cannot respond to all of her arguements.
I found a few good references to look up, so this reference has turned quite useful.
Early on her paper Edwards states "I intend to develop the brief discussions of Patterson and Garland, while paying attention to the methodological concerns raised by Oldenziel. Recent work in disability studies, in the study of concepts of normalcy, and in the issue of eugenics invites a re-examination of the assumption that all or most deformed babies were destroyed. Anachronistic assumptions about standards of normalcy have been applied to very thin evidence to result in blanket conclusions. It is important to consider the larger reality the social and psychological environment into which deformed infants were born. "
ibid
"This essay begins with a brief overview of the etiology of congenital deformity. Next, a review of the primary literary evidence for the destruction of deformed infants and of the vocabulary therein is followed by a summary of some modern interpretations of these passages. I then examine the assumption that deformed babies were inherently abhorrent to people in the ancient world and argue that this assumption is based on culturally-constructed, modern perceptions of medical and aesthetic standards that were not part of ancient Greek communities. I will not argue that no deformed baby was ever put out to die, nor do I try from the extremely limited evidence to determine details such as frequency, change over time, or variation between socioeconomic class. Because of the nature of the evidence, this essay is painted with extremely broad strokes, including in 'the ancient Greek world' all areas with predominantly Greek culture from the eighth century B.C. through the Hellenistic period. There were differences, surely, between the experiences of a wealthy Athenian family whose second daughter was born without arms and those of a poor island family whose first son was born with cerebral palsy. Yet because the record of these experiences is lacking, evidence of the differences is lost, to say nothing of subtle distinctions. One of the contributing factors to this state of the evidence, I will argue, is that the Greeks had not reached the level of abstraction in perceiving categories of physical difference."
Her conclusion is that "The source material that discusses deformed offspring in the ancient Greek world is too thin to conclude that their destruction was standard practice. The cultural atmosphere into which such babies were born was one in which deformed people were not categorically deemed evil, worthless, or ill. Modern assumptions about the economic worth and aesthetic appeal of deformed people, cloaked in the standards of medical health, do not provide an appropriate framework of interpretation for the evidence about the lot of anomalous infants in ancient Greece."
She only quotes Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Soranus and Plutarch to support her argument. However there are many other good classic sources for the evidence of "exposure" of infants. In addition there is strong archaeological evidence as well as mythological evidence, I am not quoting sources here as I'm still writing.
Nobody here has suggested that all babies with physical impairments were exposed, not even in Sparta. Not everyone obeys every law of the land. Murder is illegal in all societies and cultures, yet the fact, that it is against the law, does not mean that it does not exist. Likewise the saving of babies lives when that is illegal.
Keith
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:43:56 +0100
Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well bugger me I am not some kind of Savant Marcus Arnold who can read
> everything that were ever written about the genre not to mention
> deconstructing Koine vs Classic Greek vs Mycenean vs Sanskrit and Korean
> Shamanism to boot
>
> Larry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerrold Hirsch [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 12 August 2002 19:21
> > To: Larry Arnold
> > Subject: Re: Oedipus?
> >
> >
> > There is no point in even discussing this subject if you are not aware of
> > Martha Rose's [formerly Martha Edwards} work on disability on ancient
> > Greece that challenges almost every single assumption the emails on this
> > topic contain. I believe she has essays in Mitchell and Palmer's
> > anthology
> > and in Lennard Davis's.
> >
> > Jerry Hirsch
--
Have you been to:
< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Absolutely_Visual >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BeforeAscii_ART >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/disabilitystudies >
< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Art_in_Context >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecurrentwar/>
|