tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post9117284375824748632..comments2024-03-10T20:46:19.274-04:00Comments on In the Middle: Flash Review: Jonathan Elukin, Living Together, Living Apart: Rethinking Jewish-Christian Relations in the Middle AgesCord J. Whitakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06224143153295429986noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-52017572899489806972010-08-29T13:58:44.216-04:002010-08-29T13:58:44.216-04:00I am trying not to assume a Jewish Christian binar...I am trying not to assume a Jewish Christian binary in writing about York in the twelfth and thirteenth century.<br /><br />Two things make it difficult. First we know less about violence directed against non-Jewish populations than Jewish ones - they were simply narrated less and in less detail (they were literally less remarkable). So much so that at least 4 historians dispute whether the 'harrying of the north' in 1069-70 ever happened - so weak and ambiguous is the evidence it left behind. The same is true of knowing positive things about jewish business life which (because of the exchequer) is simply better documented than equivalent non-Jewish lending practices. With the result that popularly it is sometimes erroneously believed that only Jews lent money, only Jews lived in stone houses (because they were so rich).<br /><br />So knowing too much (or at least knowing more) about Jews leads us to the other problem - the large number of myths this is generated but dispelling them leads you right back into writing about Jews and Christians - even if you did no want to.<br /><br />OK - so this is incoherent - I am incoherent right now. <br /><br />Enough - on all fronts!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-39968365510856590592010-08-29T07:58:22.506-04:002010-08-29T07:58:22.506-04:00I agree with you Suzanne, and it seems that Nirenb...I agree with you Suzanne, and it seems that Nirenberg in that particular review is stressing that Elukin offers an interpretation born of contemporary desires, not one that does justice to history, or allows the past its full complexity.<br /><br />This tension between our own situatedness in the present and the demands of a complicated and potentially alien past -- and the role of the historian in interpreting at the touching point of these time periods -- was (maybe) best framed by Caroline Walker Bynum many moons ago, when she stressed that the questions we ask of history are time-bound, but that doesn't make them merely presentist or unhistorical; these questions that change depending on when and where they are asked alter our perception of the past; what matters ultimately is that we see both past and present as OPEN.Jeffrey Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346504393740520542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-47411274871701806802010-08-28T16:07:07.106-04:002010-08-28T16:07:07.106-04:00Yes, it is a stinging review, and I think that Nir...Yes, it is a stinging review, and I think that Nirenberg himself has distanced himself somewhat from the point of view expressed in it, which was very much the product of a particular moment, politically speaking. When I call it an 'interesting' review, what I mean is that it brings us up face to face with all that goes along with the 'convivencia' argument, whether it's made about medieval Spain in particular or medieval history in general -- that there are tremendously high stakes, at some moments even more than others, in the way we choose to remember our medieval past. We have an obligation, I think, to do all we can to make the medieval past visible to those who don't know as much about it (academic and non-academic audiences); but we also have to try hard, I think, to avoid remembering it in ways that we *want* to remember. I'm not putting this very well, but I think we have to find ways to remember the past that both make clear the extent to which our desire informs our view of the past, and also make room for all the facts that we wish were not true. (I find Susan Einbinder's work especially satisfying in this regard.)Suzanne Akbarinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-85199240095126927652010-08-28T14:42:07.394-04:002010-08-28T14:42:07.394-04:00That is quite the decimating review, Suzanne: not ...That is quite the decimating review, Suzanne: not nearly as moderate as what Karl has posted. The vampirism charge at the end is especially stinging.<br /><br />Thanks for this review, Karl. On a related topic, the Holocaust Museum here in DC has as part of its display a panel on why the Jews stayed in Germany as things worsened for them: wasn't the writing on the wall? why didn't they flee before they couldn't? The answer offered seems right to me, and is the very one you suggest in the end: they could not imagine the outcome that arrived, holding on to a hope that sense and rationality would return to the world. It didn't, but they weren't dumb for having remained: they were ordinary humans, nothing else.Jeffrey Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346504393740520542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1433725106943430812010-08-28T14:30:13.137-04:002010-08-28T14:30:13.137-04:00Here's a link to the Nirenberg review:
https:/...Here's a link to the Nirenberg review:<br />https://webshare.uchicago.edu/users/nirenberg/Public/hopes-mistakes.pdfSuzanne Akbarinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-72805162682487377502010-08-28T14:25:32.116-04:002010-08-28T14:25:32.116-04:00There's an interesting review of this book by ...There's an interesting review of this book by David Nirenberg in The New Republic 13 Feb 2008 -- he too is not convinced by the anti-lachrymose argument of Elukin, and says some useful things about the magnitude of the stakes surrounding this kind of historiography.Suzanne Akbarinoreply@blogger.com