Tags

, ,

”The year 1059 […] marks […] the moment when Pope Nicholas II set out a number of decrees that would be of momentous importance to the future structure of the Church and to the construct which people began to make of that institution in their minds. [p51]

  • Påven väljs av kardinalerna (så att inte kejsaren och den romerska adeln lägger sig i)
  • Lekmän får inte längre leda kyrkor eller uppbörda tionde
  • Diakoner och högre präster får inte längre gifta sig.
  • Bildar en kyrka som står fri från världslig hänsyn, därför att endast en sådan kan leda världen till samhällelig rättvisa och frälsning.

”[…] we see Gregory and his supporters putting forward an ideal of an all-encompassing Church unified under the Pope. […] But the Church is seen to be universal not only in a narrow institutional sense. The concept ‘Church’ encompasses society at large: Church is society and society is Church. [p52-53]

 

Denna enhet uppnåddes aldrig, men den var ett ideal. Det fanns ett ideal om en enad kristenhet även bland de (som motpåven Clemens III, Hugo av St Victor och Sankt Bernardus) som motsatte sig Gregorius reformer och anspråket på total världslig makt. (p54) Juden utgör ett permanent undantag.

 

For a brief period at least [1051-1100] the Church’s membership and leadership seemed in one mind about the desirability of introducing the apostolic life to all levels of spiritual existence. It was when members’ aspirations began to outstrip what their institution managed to offer that the phenomenon of heresy returned and quickly spread. [p55]

 

With a growing interest in the make-up of man and society, people began to wonder whether even more might be required of them to achieve forgiveness. They began to look for a more personal experience of penance. That experience was often sought through joining one of the new orders, which stressed the monk’s individual seeking for God. But some members of the laity wanted to find that experience without being obliged to give up the world for good. A traditional act of penance they could resort to was to go on a pilgrimage. But by the end of the eleventh century there was something new on offer: crusade. [p56]

 

The enthusiasm for Crusade interacted with people’s growing interest in the second person of the Trinity. […] Interest in Jesus combined with interest in and devotion to his mother. The number of churches and monastic foundations which were dedicated to the Virgin Mary in this period was vast. It is enough to recall that all Cistercian churches had her as their patron saint. St Bernard was devoted to her, as were most of the thinkers who feature in these pages. […] Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary was not a prerogative of the educated. On a much more basic level we see in the expressions of popular religion of this period the same sentiments. It was at the beginning of the twelfth century in England that miracle stories about the Virgin began to circulate. From the early twelfth century she is pictured as the queen of heaven, crowned by her son. As for Jesus himself, it is in the twelfth century that the worship of Christ’s presence in the consecrated host began. […] Elevation of the host and chalice and the ringing of bells at the moment of consecration date from this time. For the faithful the thought that Christ was actually present in their midst was awe inspiring, and feelings about the host could be ambivalent. On the one hand there was pious wonder, on the other there could be genuine dread at being so near to God. [p57-58]

All this spirituality with its concentration on apostolic poverty, devotion to Mary and serving of Christ obviously automatically excluded Jews. But it did more than that. Jews not only rejected all that Christianity taught about the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth; they were quite vociferous in expressing their rejection of both. Moreover, concentration on redeeming Jerusalem from the Muslims and concentration on the salvation [genom Kristi lidande på korset] fixed Christian minds upon those whom they thought responsible for his death. [Rhenkorståget] underlined in particularly bloody way that Jews were not only outsiders in relationship to one of the most important movements of the day; they were seen as inherent foes to what that movement stood for. [p58-59]

The urge for the poverty of the apostolic life does presuppose and economy that has some scope for wealth. [p59] Ytterligare en motsättning som drabbar judarna.

So market forces which were beyond people’s immediate control became an important factor in determining their social standard. [p60]

I den senantika kristendomen finns en motsättning mellan Jerome och Ambrose om huruvida ocker är tillåtet mellan kristna och icke-kristna. Gradually, and in conjunction with the sharpened sensitivity of Christian moralists to the problem of avarice, most Christian thinkers tended to choose the path of Jerome. The existence of any kind of usury was seen to breach the ideal of Christian universality. Those who engaged in it were condemned for threatening the wholeness of Christian society. [p60] […] And as moneylending gradually became one of the few occupations open to [Jews], they became more and more isolated in precisely the activity that was perceived by many as destroying the brotherhood of man, which in this period seemed so often to be equated with Christian universality. [p62]

 

Juden utgör som sagt ett permanent undantag i kristenheten, ett undantag som toleras enbart i den utsträckning som judar uppfyller som roll i Guds plan, nämligen att genom att bevara det gamla förbundet bevisa kristendomens riktighet (som ju följer ur det gamla testamentet). [B]y the evidence of their own Scriptures Jews bore witness for Christians had not fabricated the prophecies about Christ. [p65]

From a very early period this idea [servitus Iudeorum – att judar finns för att tjäna kristendomen] was translated into legislation forbidding Jews to have any position of authority over Christians. [p66]

När de judiska församlingarna I Nordvästeuropa växte (till del på grunda av den ökade monetariseringen), samtidigt som judarna i högre utsträckning förvägrades att äga mark, bosatte sig allt fler judar i städerna. I städerna förvägrades de syssla med hantverk – eftersom gillena är kristna samfund. Judar förpassas därför till pantverksamhet, penningväxling och -utlåning. De saknar egen maktbas och är beroende av fursten (eller annan politisk makt). The close connection between Jews and their princes set in motion something that would only find full expression in the thirteenth century [in England, northern France and Germany]: chamber serfdom. [p67] Ockerkritik kan alltså, som Rubin också visar, vara en del i maktkampen mellan lokala aktörer och fursten/kejsaren.

Det första korståget markerar en folklig otålighet; den är ett första tecken på att det skydd testimonium veritatis (tanken på judar som kristendomens sanningsvittnen) innebar urholkas.

[Om rationalisering: Abulafia nämner att förnuftet kristnades. ?]

 

I Christianized Reason At Work säger hon att judar med tiden kom att uppfattas som omänskliga eller som handlandes i ond tro, eftersom kristendomen var uppenbar och förnuftig. Sammanhanget är lärda verk i skolor och kloster. Elitkultur. Kolla Rubin?

Judar fungerar som ett sätt att förskjuta en inomkristen dialog (om förnuft och tro) på den andre. Anklagelserna mot judar blev så pass hätska just därför att det rörde frågor som kristna själva tvivlade på. (Christianized reason at work – kanske tidigare)

Indeed, many of the points which had been brought up by the Jew in the Disputatio Iudei are aired here for a second time. The difference between the two disputations is that in the Disputatio cum Gentili reason – and emphatically not authority – is supposed to prove the Christian case. (p78f)

Gilbertus Crispinus (1055 – 1117). I Disputatio Iudei et Christiani ifrågsätter juden inkarnationen, men den kristna argumentationen lutar sig främst på texternas, profeternas och kyrkofädernas auktoritet. I Disputatio Christiani cum Gentili är den icke-kristna argumentationen i stort densamma, men försvaret av kristendomen utgår, på Anselm av Canterburys inrådan, ifrån förnuftet.

Når Odo av Cambrai skriver sin om inkarnationen och jungfrufödseln under det tidiga elvahundratalet tvingas juden erkänna att det inte finns några förnuftsmässiga skäl att tvivla på kristendomen, men att den judiska lagen förbjuder honom att erkänna dess sanning. Men förnuftet, skriver Odo, är givet alla människor: att judar inte förnuftsmässigt kunde komma till tro måste innebära att judar inte riktigt är människor. (p85)

Det innebär ett steg bort från de hedningar som Anselm skrivit om, som vägrade tro eftersom de inte kunde förstå. Pseudo-Anselm skriver om otrogna som accepterar varje förnuftsmässigt argument, men ändå vägrar tro. Pseudo-Anselm skriver då att kristendomens sanning är uppenbar för alla: korset vördas över hela jorden; kristendomen har övervunnit alla hednakulter: allt detta hade varit omöjligt om inte kristendomen hade varit sann. Kristendomens sanning är så uppenbar att de otrogna kan framhärda endast genom ond tro. (p85f)

Dessa föreställningar var inte universella under medeltiden. I Ysagoge in Theologiam, skriven på elvahundrafyrtiotalet i England, står det att judar i god tro kan förneka Kristi gudomlighet, till och med att de måste göra det för att undgå att ljuga. Men Guibert och Pseudo-Anselm och Odo – och Pseudo-Vilhelm av Champeaux och Hildbert av Lavardin Petrus Venerabilis och många andra – hävdade att kristendomens sanning var uppenbar och universell: att förneka den var därför att ställa sig bortom förnuftet. Även Petrus Abelardus, som förnekade de yttre tecknens vikt för tron, menade att förnuftet (med vilket Abelardus särskilt avsåg naturfilosofin) av nödvändighet leder till insikt om Kristi gudomlighet. Med juden förmår ingen filosofi: han är för upptagen av de mosaiska lagarna. Inte bara varje vaket ögonblick, utan även sömnen,[1] upptas av ångest inför tanken att ha brutit mot något enda påbud, skriver Abelardus.  Judarna, skriver Abelardus, försökte blidka Gud, men genom sin lagbundenhet är judarna oförmögna att faktiskt blidka honom. Gud har uppenbarat sig för människan genom profeterna och genom filosofin: som det enda folket på jorden var judarna oförmögna att leva såsom Gud avsett, därför att de vantolkade profeterna och stod utanför filosofin. (p89ff)

 

Ingen av de ovanstående lutade sig uteslutande på förnuftet. Förnuftsmässiga argument förstärktes med hänvisningar till texterna, texter som judarna anklagades för att ha förvanskat.

 

As we have seen, twelfth-century renaissance scholars utilized a concept of reason which was imbued with all kinds of Platonic and Stoic connotations. This meant that a great deal of weight was attached to what was believed to be the innate ability of the mind to grasp truth. The mind was thus ever more emphatically raised above the body, as was the spirit over the properties and appetites of the flesh. We have also seen that the truth was essentially Christian. Jews, who continued to refute that ‘truth’, were, therefore, increasingly associated with what lay opposite to reason: the senses or appetites of the body.[2] This trend interlocked with the way in which the Hebrew Bible was viewed within the context of Christian salvific history. With the Fall of Adam and the injection of original sin into humanity, salvation was considered unattainable until the coming of Christ. So the rewards which were promised in the letter of the Old Testament could only be material ones; spiritual rewards were reserved for the New Testament. As with the bifurcation between reason and appetite, Jews became steadily more associated with the material gain which their Scriptures were thought to offer them. (p107)

 

Om Odo: var en extremt asketisk munk (även jämfört med andra asketiska munkar); måste ifrågasättas i vilken utsträckning hans förkastande av kroppen (explicit bondefientligt) [p108] – och därmed associationen judar-köttslighet – var allmänt omfattad.

 

Högmedeltiden innebar att kroppen och kroppsligheten uppmärksammades i allmänhet, och Jesu och Maria kroppar i synnerhet. […] widespread fascination with the human nature of Christ and the womb from which he was supposed to have assumed flesh. Concurrent interest in the twelfth-century renaissance in the workings of nature made it all the more imperative for Christian thinkers to feel able to explain how God could become incarnate […]. (p108)

 

Guibert säger: A dying usurer is reported to have swallowed the coin he had extorted from a poor woman as if it were the consecrated wafer of the last rites. [bottnar I föreställningar om mat och kroppslighet som jag inte kan ta upp här] [kristen ockrare; judiska ockrare är mer uppenbart tjuvar]

Whereas the usurers of the De Vita sua, including the one whose dying act was to swallow a coin rather than the viaticum, are Christians, urusers in Guibert’s Treatise on the Incarnation are Jews. Incapable as they are of profiting from Mosaic Law by understanding its non-material message […], Hews are drawn to theft, lies and deceit. In Guibert’s mind usury was clearly tantamount to stealing, for Jews are portrayed as thieves as they supposedly amass interest off the backs of the poor. According the Guibert, Jewish lives are filled by thefts and usury; they lack the desire for holy simplicity. [p112]

Guibert är också asket: hans fördömande av samtidens synder kretsar kring köttslighet, kroppsvätskor, frosseri, likaska. [p110] Det är, enligt Guibert, genom sin köttslighet som judar är oförmögna att se sanningen. De är filthy and carnal in a material sense. [p113] Köttsligheten består I att de inte tror på jungfrufödseln, att de hävdar att inkarnationen och lidandet på korset är motbjudande: [p118] de kan inte se det andliga (liksom anden, för Odo, skulle föredra att riva ett hus hellre än att hugga ner ett levande äppelträd som hotar falla på det – förnuftet föredrar det levande, som står högre än det livlösa) [p109] utan är fast i sinnevärlden. En sinnevärld de själva måste förakta därför att deras lag kräver det. For all its smelly effluences, the human condition, even in its female form, is not disgusting in itself. [p112] Men judarna håller fast vid orenheten: den judiska lagen grundar sig enbart på äckel.

Enligt Hermannus (själv konvertit) kan judar omvändas genom goda exempel: kristen andlighet och försakelse. [p114-115]

Enligt Peter the Venerable är judar djuriska: de står bortom förnuftet. ’I know not whether a Jew is a man because he does not cede to human reason’ […] (p116). Their love for earthly things, for example, makes them interpret innumerable biblical passages as if they applied to the promised land. This results in nothing else than Jews throwing away all the heavenly and eternal goods which have been given to all peoples but them. […] To Peter there was no hope for Jews as long as they persisted in their carnal outlook on life, which, he was sure, was intrinsically bound up with their literal reading of the Bible. (p116)

 

 

Accusations of carnal or unreasonable behaviour were limited neither to Jews nor to the twelfth century. Christians would happily employ similar terms of abuse against those with whom they disagreed on all kinds of issues. […] What is important in our period is the interlocking of the different areas where Jews, as a distinct group, were perceived as falling outside the norms of Christian society. […] Jews had this in common with other groups like heretics. […] The underlying ideology of the Church was one of enthusiastic inclusiveness, for by definition it was open to all members of the human race. […] Thus inclusiveness, however, went hand in hand with mechanisms of exclusion. The institutional Church was becoming increasingly hierarchical. Greater definition of doctrine and ritual, greater efforts to enable the clergy to tighten their grip on pastoral affairs, greater care for legal and administrative concern – all these efforts begged for mechanisms of control determining what was truly Christian and what was not. [p123-124]

[1] Sömnen! Sleep itself, which brings the greatest rest and renews nature, disquiets us with such great worry that even while sleeping we can think of nothing but the danger that looms over our throats. (p90) Även genom den störda nattsömnen står juden bortom naturen.

[2] Se om penningutlånare och kvinnor i The Silk Industries of Medieval Paris

 

 

Kritik av Langmuir (judehat uppstår som sublimerat inomkristet tvivel):

I too believe that many thinkers of the twelfth-century renaissance and beyond experienced doubts as they struggled to face the challenge posed to them by classical thought. But I also think that many of them overcame their doubts, and not just by suppressing empirical evidence. Many of these thinkers were inspired by a genuine confidence that the proper use of reason (which they did not restrict to rational empirical thought) would necessarily lead not only to understanding but also to concurrence with Christian doctrine. But since they also thought that reason was the hallmark of human beings, separating humans from animals, they were lead to conclude that those who could not accept their rational conclusions about Christianity were not really human. [p6]

 

Much of the hatred towards Jews stemmed from totally uneducated people and many of their views about Jews were irrational by anyone’s definition of the word. However, this book has portrayed the intellectual developments during the twelfth century as a broad framework which seemed to invite and justify all kinds of accusations against Jews. The precise interaction between the work of scholars and popular attitudes demands a book in its own right.* Preaching and miracle collections were obvious ways of bringing the wider public into contact with what intellectuals were thinking. Increasing popular devotion to the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ would seem to have made many receptive to the idea that Jews were not a useful part of human society. […] The fact that Jews played an increasingly distinct economic role whilst falling outside the parameters of central Christian communal celebrations must have made the idea even more persuasive. […] [p139]

We have concentrated on northwestern Europe because it was in this region that much greater scope at first existed for different facets of anti-Jewish feeling to interlock. The reason for this must lie in the fact that it was in this part of Europe that such rapid economic and social change took place. [p140]

 

 

 

*Kristnandet av förnuftet. Abulafia skriver om ett särskilt andligt förnuft skilt från sinnligeheten – men Murray skriver ju om hur prudentia så tydligt sammanblandades. Kanske har vi här just kopplingen?

Advertisements