Interconnection and Separation: Medieval Perspectives on the Modern Problem of the “Global Middle Ages”

IF 0.1 Q3 HISTORY Medieval Encounters Pub Date : 2023-06-15 DOI:10.1163/15700674-12340164
N. Berend
{"title":"Interconnection and Separation: Medieval Perspectives on the Modern Problem of the “Global Middle Ages”","authors":"N. Berend","doi":"10.1163/15700674-12340164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article argues that “global” is both too vague and too misleading a term to help conceptualize the Middle Ages. It is used for too many diverse phenomena, and criticism of the term by modernists has not been taken on board. Instead of borrowing and distorting this concept to make it fit, we should look at the nature and range of both interconnection and separation in our period, and create concepts based on our source-material. The medieval evidence shows that through the narrow channels, through the segmented and broken-up chains of communication, knowledge and objects can still flow. Superficial similarities to modern connectivity (for example trade) may hide real divergence, such as the motivation for the spice trade, which was related to searching for earthly paradise. Remoteness and separation were seen and described by medieval authors, but in reality both separation and connection were more ambiguous phenomena. Limited interconnection between areas of the globe did not dampen universal aspirations for the spread of Christianity. Finally, the mechanism of declared Christian religious superiority contrasted with the way in which Christianity gobbled up other traditions, ingesting and transforming them in its own image, while refusing to acknowledge this incorporation. This creophagous attitude characterized Christian relations to Judaism, Arabic science and pagan philosophy: strong interconnection coexisted with explicitly stated separateness.","PeriodicalId":52521,"journal":{"name":"Medieval Encounters","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medieval Encounters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700674-12340164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that “global” is both too vague and too misleading a term to help conceptualize the Middle Ages. It is used for too many diverse phenomena, and criticism of the term by modernists has not been taken on board. Instead of borrowing and distorting this concept to make it fit, we should look at the nature and range of both interconnection and separation in our period, and create concepts based on our source-material. The medieval evidence shows that through the narrow channels, through the segmented and broken-up chains of communication, knowledge and objects can still flow. Superficial similarities to modern connectivity (for example trade) may hide real divergence, such as the motivation for the spice trade, which was related to searching for earthly paradise. Remoteness and separation were seen and described by medieval authors, but in reality both separation and connection were more ambiguous phenomena. Limited interconnection between areas of the globe did not dampen universal aspirations for the spread of Christianity. Finally, the mechanism of declared Christian religious superiority contrasted with the way in which Christianity gobbled up other traditions, ingesting and transforming them in its own image, while refusing to acknowledge this incorporation. This creophagous attitude characterized Christian relations to Judaism, Arabic science and pagan philosophy: strong interconnection coexisted with explicitly stated separateness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联系与分离:“全球中世纪”现代问题的中世纪视角
本文认为,“全球”这个词太模糊,也太容易误导人,无法帮助我们对中世纪进行概念化。它被用来描述太多不同的现象,现代主义者对这个词的批评并没有被采纳。而不是借用和扭曲这个概念,使其适合,我们应该看到在我们的时代,连接和分离的性质和范围,并在我们的原始材料的基础上创造概念。中世纪的证据表明,通过狭窄的渠道,通过分段和断裂的通信链,知识和对象仍然可以流动。与现代连通性(例如贸易)的表面相似性可能掩盖了真正的差异,例如香料贸易的动机,这与寻找人间天堂有关。中世纪的作家看到并描述了遥远和分离,但在现实中,分离和联系都是更模糊的现象。全球各地区之间有限的联系并没有抑制人们对基督教传播的普遍渴望。最后,基督教宣称的宗教优越性的机制与基督教吞噬其他传统的方式形成对比,基督教以自己的形象吸收和改造它们,同时拒绝承认这种融合。这种恐怖的态度是基督教与犹太教、阿拉伯科学和异教哲学的关系的特点:强烈的相互联系与明确声明的分离并存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medieval Encounters
Medieval Encounters Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Medieval Encounters promotes discussion and dialogue accross cultural, linguistic and disciplinary boundaries on the interactions of Jewish, Christian and Muslim cultures during the period from the fourth through to the sixteenth century C.E. Culture is defined in its widest form to include art, all manner of history, languages, literature, medicine, music, philosophy, religion and science. The geographic limits of inquiry will be bounded only by the limits in which the traditions interacted. Confluence, too, will be construed in its widest form to permit exploration of more indirect interactions and influences and to permit examination of important subjects on a comparative basis.
期刊最新文献
Ibn ʿĀʾisha: Matrilineal Kinship, Naming Practices, and the Poetics of Marwanid Matrilineality The Sufi Who Was a Sayyid: Muḥammad Ḥusaynī Gesūdarāz’s Assertions of Spiritual Authority Medieval Latin Lives of Muhammad, edited and translated by Julian Jolles and Jessica Weiss Ties of Kinship and Islamicate Societies: Introduction Epistolary Strategies of Negotiation: Reading a Fraternal Dispute at the Mughal Court, 1593–1594
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1