At 10:29 AM 16.7.97 -0600, you wrote:
>Nicole Shulman wrote:
>>
>>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!
I wasn't going to weigh in on this subject, but the alternative is
proofreading a paper so the choice is clear: It is my impression that a
large number of scholars who work in that area of Christian-Jewish
relations, especially younger scholars, do find Moore's thesis somewhat old
hat (but still worth mentioning). For example, David Nirenberg, in his
_Communities of Violence_ criticizes Moore, along with Carlo Ginzburg, for
providing a kind of "structuralist" model of the history of persecution with
an over-emphasis on the power of collective systems of thought. I suspect
that part of the reason for this turn against Moore is simply because his
work did shape our early ideas of medieval society - he was what we read as
undergraduates and graduate students. I agree with Nirenberg's criticisms
and I have my own problems with Moore as well - mostly that he ignores the
early medieval evidence of hostility to Jews and lepers. But, as Gow
pointed out, heretics are really his speciality and what he does best. Like
another book which was enormously influential, Jeremy Cohen's _Friars and
the Jews_, perhaps the greatest legacy of Moore's work is the way it has
inspired so many to revise, qualify, expand, render more precise, or rebut
his thesis.
Regards,
Lucy Pick
******************************************
Lucy K. Pick
Nuveen Instructor
Divinity School
University of Chicago
1025 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|