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
|