Sleepwalking into a New World: The Emergence of Italian City Communes in the Twelfth Century
Sleepwalking into a New World: The Emergence of Italian City Communes in the Twelfth Century
复制标题
梦游新世界：12世纪意大利城市公社的出现
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Houghton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Houghton
中世纪晚期的相遇。哈维·J·哈姆斯 (Harvey J. Hames) 认为，现存希伯来语对 1240 年巴黎遭遇战的描述是在纳赫马尼德斯对 1263 年巴塞罗那争端的描述之后写成的，并深受其影响。从某种意义上说，这是边界建构，也是以下两篇文章（以及第三部分的最后两篇）的重点，这些文章依次考虑了巴勃罗·德·圣玛丽亚对天琴座尼古拉斯作品的补充，以及阿拉格尔在十五世纪对其新译本圣经的注释。最后，本书的第四部分专门讨论与性别相关的问题。 《托莱多耶稣》中耶稣的阳刚形象值得亚历山德拉·库菲尔的注意。尼娜·卡普托随后回到纳赫马尼德斯，这是该书的许多作者都熟悉的主题。卡普托在他对《创世记》第六章第 1-4 节的解释中看到，试图调和“神学中的人肉与神圣精神，从根本上否认神圣的任何人类品质”（第 186 页），但这种解读似乎疏远了中世纪的基督徒和犹太人。接下来，《箴言》中的“奇怪的女人”在希伯来语注释中发生了转变，揭示了几位作者之间发生的丰富的知识辩论以及不断变化的社会文化背景。最后一篇文章是史蒂文·克鲁格 (Steven F. Kruger) 撰写的关于纪尧姆·德·布尔日 (Guillaume de Bourges) 的文章，它从杰伊·鲁宾斯坦 (Jay Rubenstein) 的作品中汲取灵感，将纪尧姆的注释视为自传的一种形式，纪尧姆特别试图捍卫他从犹太教转向基督教的立场，并确立自己作为神圣文本的合法基督教读者的地位。尽管它并不像标题所暗示的那么全面，而且许多文稿读起来有点像经过轻微修改的会议论文（专门针对原始会议的焦点），但该书本身制作精良，值得耐心阅读。人们可能会想深入研究这本书，寻找一篇特定的文章，然后放下这本书，但这样做会错过一些重要的东西。这本书的真正价值在于它给人留下了中世纪晚期犹太人、穆斯林和基督徒之间互动的印象。事实上，最重要的是，从整体上看，这本书应该被理解为对中世纪晚期穆斯林、犹太人和基督徒如何通过释经相互交谈来加强和超越其社区边界的连贯考察。一位同事曾经在一次会议小组会议上大声询问学院是否正在经历“释经转向”。考虑到本书和最近的其他作品，我当然希望如此；这将是进一步研究的有利可图的途径。释经研究可以揭示中世纪知识生活的丰富性，这为我们强调了我们研究对象的人性。他们的智力辩论证明了过去的偶然性，决定对他们（因此对我们）很重要，并且事情不一定注定会像最终那样发展。
encounters in the late Middle Ages. Harvey J. Hames sees that the extant Hebrew account of an encounter in Paris in 1240 was written after, and heavily influenced by, Nahmanides’ account of the 1263 Barcelona disputation. This was, in a sense, boundary construction, which is also the focus of the following two essays (and final two in the third section), which consider in turn Pablo de Santa María’s Additiones to the work of Nicholas of Lyra and Arragel’s fifteenth-century glosses on his new translation of the Bible. Finally, the fourth section of the volume is dedicated to questions related to gender. The masculinity of Jesus’ portrayal in the Toledot Yeshu merits the attention of Alexandra Cuffel. Nina Caputo then returns to Nahmanides, a subject familiar to many of the volume’s authors. Caputo sees in his exegesis of Genesis VI:1–4 an attempt to reconcile “human flesh and divine spirit in a theology that fundamentally denies to the divine any human qualities” (p. 186), but in a reading that seems to have alienated medieval Christians and Jews alike. Next, the “strange woman” of Proverbs transforms in Hebrew exegesis, revealing a rich intellectual debate occurring across several authors and shifting socio-cultural contexts. The final essay, by Steven F. Kruger on Guilllaume de Bourges, takes a cue from the work of Jay Rubenstein and sees Guillaume’s exegesis as a form of autobiography, with Guillaume specifically attempting to defend his conversion from Judaism to Christianity and establish himself as a legitimate Christian reader of sacred texts. Although it is not nearly as comprehensive as its title would suggest, and a number of the contributions read somewhat like lightly revised conference papers (specialised to the focus of the original conference), the volume itself is well produced and rewards patient reading. One might be tempted to dip into the volume, looking for a particular essay then putting the book down, but to do so would be to miss something important. The real value of the book lies in the impression it leaves of the interactions between Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the late Middle Ages. Indeed, most importantly, taken as a whole, the volume should be read as a coherent examination of how Muslims, Jews and Christians both reinforced and transgressed the boundaries of their communities during the late Middle Ages by speaking to one another through exegesis. A colleague once wondered aloud during a conference panel whether the academy was going through an “exegetical turn”. Given this present volume and other recent works, I certainly hope so; this will be a profitable path to investigate further. The richness that the study of exegesis can reveal about the intellectual life of the Middle Ages emphasises for us the very humanity of our subjects. Their intellectual debates demonstrate the contingency of the past, that decisions mattered to them (and hence to us) and that things were not necessarily destined to turn out as they ultimately have.