This sounds fascinating, though, as you say, the assumption that one can deal with these narratives without putting the matter of their truthiness front and centre seems rather blinkered.
And, yes, failing to mention blood libel - um, what? I mean, especially when talking about cannibal symbolism in the eucharist (which deserves more than a mention, I think, when trying to triangulate European attitudes to eating other people). And one would have thought the blood libel is in some ways case zero for insisting on cannibalism as a defining lack in Christian civilisation. I don't really know how much it was theorised over the centuries when it was current either, but I would imagine ... a lot? I mean, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a lot of medieval stuff on it, just for starters - and I don't see that you can exclude versions from mystery plays and suchlike, which were most certainly current and from what little I know doing quite a bit to define discourse around the subject, even if they weren't theory as such. Too close a focus on travel narratives, I suspect, is part of the problem here - but then the book seems rather cagy in general about unpicking the broader ramifications of dehumanising people as cannibals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-10-24 01:31 pm (UTC)This sounds fascinating, though, as you say, the assumption that one can deal with these narratives without putting the matter of their truthiness front and centre seems rather blinkered.
And, yes, failing to mention blood libel - um, what? I mean, especially when talking about cannibal symbolism in the eucharist (which deserves more than a mention, I think, when trying to triangulate European attitudes to eating other people). And one would have thought the blood libel is in some ways case zero for insisting on cannibalism as a defining lack in Christian civilisation. I don't really know how much it was theorised over the centuries when it was current either, but I would imagine ... a lot? I mean, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a lot of medieval stuff on it, just for starters - and I don't see that you can exclude versions from mystery plays and suchlike, which were most certainly current and from what little I know doing quite a bit to define discourse around the subject, even if they weren't theory as such. Too close a focus on travel narratives, I suspect, is part of the problem here - but then the book seems rather cagy in general about unpicking the broader ramifications of dehumanising people as cannibals.
And medicinal mumia! One of my favourite bits of medical history (I mean, for certain values of 'favourite'). I remember reading that it started with the medicinal use of bitumen under Avincenna et al ... aaaand then people noticed that one useful source of tarry substances was Egyptian tombs and the contents thereof. Win and profit and fake mummies ensued. I think the very awesome Ambroise Paré (also notable for publicising the idea that cauterising wounds tended to do more harm than good) was one of the first guys to hold up a restraining hand and say that perhaps it wasn't such a great idea.
Also, On Sledge and Horseback to Outcast Siberian Lepers is indeed a most awesome title.
So ... I hope you don't mind me dwircling you?