tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post113883925512944414..comments2024-03-10T20:46:19.274-04:00Comments on In the Middle: Monstrous BeautyCord J. Whitakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06224143153295429986noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1138907800586685092006-02-02T14:16:00.000-05:002006-02-02T14:16:00.000-05:00I'm with you, Karl, in your suspicions about the "...I'm with you, Karl, in your suspicions about the "things got worse and worse" argument. Salisbury is a good case in point, with that huge thesis about cultural change in perceptions of animals. <BR/><BR/>Things were never that great for the Jews to begin with -- even before the Jews startled to settle in England in the wake of the Conquest, plenty of anti-semitic stories had paved the way for a bad reception. I suppose the argument could be made a bit more convincingly with the Welsh and Irish, though, who did face a transformation from allies to barbarians. But enjoyment was ALWAYS part of the equation, and that's what complicates simple progress (or denigration) narratives.<BR/><BR/>As to disability studies and monsters in the Middle Ages, there ought to be more work that makes use of this innovative field. Bettina Bildhauer and Robert Mills gesture towards it in their introduction to <EM>The Monstrous Middle Ages</EM> (see n68, citing Rosemarie Thomson), but I'm not aware of much out there that uses other scholars' works, like Berube. My colleague here at GW, Robert McRuer, works at the intersection of queer theory and disability studies; it puzzles me that that confluence hasn't happened in analyses of the Middle Ages.<BR/><BR/>Finally, about the pileum cornutum: they are all late in Strickland (12thC and later). Several are pointy hats that designate non-Jewish characters as evil.Jeffrey Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346504393740520542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1138846124387367332006-02-01T21:08:00.000-05:002006-02-01T21:08:00.000-05:00Have to grade papers, and suffering under a cold, ...Have to grade papers, and suffering under a cold, so I can't give this post the comment I want to. Here's a few initial stabs:<BR/><BR/>If you recall, when does Strickland place the earliest pileum cornutum? I've an article by Ruth Mellinkoff (in 1973) on the Jewish hats in Cotton Claudius B.ix, which is an OE version of the Pentateuch and Joshua. Now, these aren't actually the <I>pointed</I> hats. They're round caps, and only the Jews beginning with Aaron (i.e., post-Law) are shown wearing them. It's interesting to me that these hats would show up in an England is all likelihood without a Jewish settlement and <I>possibly</I> without a strong anti-Jewish intent.<BR/><BR/>Stab Two: has anyone done disability studies yet with medieval monster readings? I've got a longish bit in my diss. on the normative human body as a manifestation of reason that alienates this body from the human by making it the body of an abstract quality (reason, etc.) rather than of the human, yadda yadda yadda, and I realized that when this thing becomes a book, I want to bring in contemporary theory on 'abnormal' bodies. Does Strickland do this?<BR/><BR/>Stab Three: Do you buy the narrative of things getting worse for monsters as they become more and more associated with increasingly loathed non-Christian groups? I'm suspicious of most of the big narratives (see: Joyce Salisbury on animals) and this strikes me as yet another one probably meriting my suspicion. I can't help but think of the monsters in Pentacost contexts carved on Cathedrals or the semi-comic giants of the William of Orange epics, Aucussin and Nicolette, or Bevis of Hampton, or the various monsters that end up in the retinue of Duke Ernst: all these tales are contemporary with or post-date the beginning of the period of pogroms.Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.com