Rigney Informal Post: Various and Sundry on Strayer
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Rigney
Jul 7, 2012, 10:41:26 AM7/7/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Some miscellaneous thoughts that didn't make into the formal post:
1) I'm intrigued by the role of the court in establishing the authority of monarchs (on their way to creating modern states). Jurisdiction leads to sovereignty, but only when coupled with efficiency and the appearance of impartiality (the brief history of trial-by-jury was fascinating).
2) The efficiency of the courts is made possible by an educated bureaucracy. Thus, education becomes a key factor in the development of the state.
3) Education doesn't merely serve the law, but also serves the financial sector, as the increasing complexity of feudal accounts demands estate-managers who can add and subtract quickly and accurately.
4) Feudalism proves to be a key stepping-stone on the way to states in that it causes economic, social, and political (in terms of allegiance to a lord) spheres to align.
5) The Investiture Conflict (and the "triumph" of the papacy in it) results in the creation of "secular space" and fosters the development of the modern state. Can't wait to read those documents.
6) As I read Strayer, I was reminded of a book by C.C. Pecknold called Christianity and Politics: A Brief Guide to the History. I'm a little fuzzy, but I seem to remember Pecknold arguing that the history of the West displays the transfer of the idea of the "mystical body" from the Church to the State. The State replaces the Church as Christ's body on earth and then swallows the head (or something like that). When I get back to Minneapolis, I'll look it up.
7) Jordan's description of Strayer's approach to history was a fascinating read in itself. I appreciate the desire to make history useful to political scientists trying to mid-wife new states in post-colonial Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but the ideas that you can short-circuit hundreds of years of religious, social, and cultural development and create parliamentary democracies from scratch is just this side of loony, and a historian (of all people) ought to no better. When the CIA approached him and asked how to transform Rhodesia into a liberal democracy, he ought to have said, "Send missionaries (preferably of the Boniface-cut-down-sacred-trees variety) and allow it to simmer for a few centuries. Short of that, It. Can't. Be. Done."
Joe Rigney
Laura King
Jul 7, 2012, 1:58:57 PM7/7/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Oh, Christianity and Politics, a great book that we NSA students read in Theology class actually. I would highly recommend it to anyone!
Laura
George Harrell
Jul 9, 2012, 10:18:56 AM7/9/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
With regards to comment #7, Frantz Fanon has some fascinating material on the failure of the decolonization of Africa in his Wretched of the Earth.
-George
Maryani
Jul 10, 2012, 11:57:34 PM7/10/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Agree on education role as a key factor on the development of the state. And interestingly just like in medieval era where educated people have to master Greek and Latin in China at the same time, the emperor conducts schools to educate people to become government official. And one of the test is Mandarin Poetry.
On Saturday, July 7, 2012 7:41:26 AM UTC-7, Joe Rigney wrote:
On Saturday, July 7, 2012 7:41:26 AM UTC-7, Joe Rigney wrote:
Chris Schlect
Jul 11, 2012, 12:53:21 AM7/11/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Miscellaneous follows-up. Thanks for these thoughts, Joe.
CRS: Good here. To add nuance, incorporate into your analysis the dynamics of competing, overlapping jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions lead to sovereignty. What is the process by which centralized royal jurisdiction wound up being privileged over local jurisdiction? Strayer seeks to answer that question.
CRS: Good here too. I would frame this within the broader context of specialization--centralizing forces produce efficiencies by specialization and economies of scale. Bureaucrats are specialists.
CRS: Exactly! See #2 above. Think specialization.
CRS: Several remarks here. (a) Your claim implicates the prevailing attacks upon the very notion of feudalism waged by leading medievalists since the 1970s. If there was no such thing as medieval feudalism, then obviously it would not have been a stepping stone to the rise of the modern state. This isn't a criticism of your remark, only an observation that points to how far-reaching the critique of feudalism truly is, historiographically speaking. (b) Is it possible for modern states to form without going through a "feudal" stage? (I am inclined to think so, but am far from resolved on the matter.) (c) Are you positing a universal principle of political society, or merely an historical process at work in the development of Europe?
You will love the investiture book. I'm not so sure the papacy triumphed in the controversy; the rise of conciliarism must be accounted for.
Interesting. Does he account for Byzantium, where sacral kingship was nurtured and perpetuated?
Important point here! I like "loony" as a term to describe some of these aspects of 19th-century nationalism and colonialism. You can't franchise democratic-republican ideals to form McDemocracies all around the world. Local exigencies matter. The Indian reservations out here in the American West are very much the products of our own American colonialism, Our handling of Native Americans was part of the USA's colonial enterprise.
One thing we need to look at is what Bede would say to missionaries.
As always, thanks for the provocative insights, Joe.
CRS
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Joe Rigney <joe.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some miscellaneous thoughts that didn't make into the formal post:1) I'm intrigued by the role of the court in establishing the authority of monarchs (on their way to creating modern states). Jurisdiction leads to sovereignty, but only when coupled with efficiency and the appearance of impartiality (the brief history of trial-by-jury was fascinating).
CRS: Good here. To add nuance, incorporate into your analysis the dynamics of competing, overlapping jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions lead to sovereignty. What is the process by which centralized royal jurisdiction wound up being privileged over local jurisdiction? Strayer seeks to answer that question.
2) The efficiency of the courts is made possible by an educated bureaucracy. Thus, education becomes a key factor in the development of the state.
CRS: Good here too. I would frame this within the broader context of specialization--centralizing forces produce efficiencies by specialization and economies of scale. Bureaucrats are specialists.
3) Education doesn't merely serve the law, but also serves the financial sector, as the increasing complexity of feudal accounts demands estate-managers who can add and subtract quickly and accurately.
CRS: Exactly! See #2 above. Think specialization.
4) Feudalism proves to be a key stepping-stone on the way to states in that it causes economic, social, and political (in terms of allegiance to a lord) spheres to align.
CRS: Several remarks here. (a) Your claim implicates the prevailing attacks upon the very notion of feudalism waged by leading medievalists since the 1970s. If there was no such thing as medieval feudalism, then obviously it would not have been a stepping stone to the rise of the modern state. This isn't a criticism of your remark, only an observation that points to how far-reaching the critique of feudalism truly is, historiographically speaking. (b) Is it possible for modern states to form without going through a "feudal" stage? (I am inclined to think so, but am far from resolved on the matter.) (c) Are you positing a universal principle of political society, or merely an historical process at work in the development of Europe?
5) The Investiture Conflict (and the "triumph" of the papacy in it) results in the creation of "secular space" and fosters the development of the modern state. Can't wait to read those documents.
You will love the investiture book. I'm not so sure the papacy triumphed in the controversy; the rise of conciliarism must be accounted for.
6) As I read Strayer, I was reminded of a book by C.C. Pecknold called Christianity and Politics: A Brief Guide to the History. I'm a little fuzzy, but I seem to remember Pecknold arguing that the history of the West displays the transfer of the idea of the "mystical body" from the Church to the State. The State replaces the Church as Christ's body on earth and then swallows the head (or something like that). When I get back to Minneapolis, I'll look it up.
Interesting. Does he account for Byzantium, where sacral kingship was nurtured and perpetuated?
7) Jordan's description of Strayer's approach to history was a fascinating read in itself. I appreciate the desire to make history useful to political scientists trying to mid-wife new states in post-colonial Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but the ideas that you can short-circuit hundreds of years of religious, social, and cultural development and create parliamentary democracies from scratch is just this side of loony, and a historian (of all people) ought to no better. When the CIA approached him and asked how to transform Rhodesia into a liberal democracy, he ought to have said, "Send missionaries (preferably of the Boniface-cut-down-sacred-trees variety) and allow it to simmer for a few centuries. Short of that, It. Can't. Be. Done."
Important point here! I like "loony" as a term to describe some of these aspects of 19th-century nationalism and colonialism. You can't franchise democratic-republican ideals to form McDemocracies all around the world. Local exigencies matter. The Indian reservations out here in the American West are very much the products of our own American colonialism, Our handling of Native Americans was part of the USA's colonial enterprise.
One thing we need to look at is what Bede would say to missionaries.
As always, thanks for the provocative insights, Joe.
CRS
--Joe Rigney
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hist-504?hl=en.
Brian & Cara Bergeron
Jul 14, 2012, 11:18:15 PM7/14/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Laura or Joe, would you recommend Pecknold's book to a sophomore in high school with an intense interest in politics? I am curious for personal reasons.
Cara
Sent from my iPad
Brian & Cara Bergeron
Jul 14, 2012, 11:35:31 PM7/14/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Mr. Schlect, are you asking us to discuss, in #1, why local jurisdictions did not become sovereign? If so, this is a tough question to wrap my mind around, because I associate sovereignty with single-ruler kingship. This is the biblical picture of kingship, so it is pretty tough to imagine a local court somehow becoming sovereign at the expense of the king's itinerant courts. "We all know" that the king is the most powerful player on the board, right? Are you asking what might have transpired if local jurisdictions had triumphed and the state had dissolved in infancy? Wouldn't that just be feudalism again? My husband will tell you that I am pretty rotten at this kind of political speculation, but he is brilliant at it.
Cara
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
Laura King
Jul 17, 2012, 8:10:49 PM7/17/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
I think I remember it being a quick read for me, so I guess that would make it a bit easier which would lead me to say yes. Wow, that was kind of a round about way of saying that.
Laura
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Chris Schlect
Jul 18, 2012, 2:56:32 AM7/18/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Cara,
Even biblical law acknowledges that overlapping jurisdictions exist. A father can spank his son; that's his prerogative as the authority in the home. But if he batters and bloodies his son, then he can be hauled before civil and ecclesiastical courts. Simply saying, "the king is sovereign" does not explain it.
So in the early middle ages we have overlapping jurisdictions between local baronial courts and the more central king's court. There was a time when the king's court functioned essentially like a local court--functioning at the locale where the king was. It was local courts that administered justice. But over time, and gradually, the king's courts waxed and local courts waned; the latter gave way to the former. My question is, how did this come about? By what means or processes?
CR Schlect
Even biblical law acknowledges that overlapping jurisdictions exist. A father can spank his son; that's his prerogative as the authority in the home. But if he batters and bloodies his son, then he can be hauled before civil and ecclesiastical courts. Simply saying, "the king is sovereign" does not explain it.
So in the early middle ages we have overlapping jurisdictions between local baronial courts and the more central king's court. There was a time when the king's court functioned essentially like a local court--functioning at the locale where the king was. It was local courts that administered justice. But over time, and gradually, the king's courts waxed and local courts waned; the latter gave way to the former. My question is, how did this come about? By what means or processes?
CR Schlect
Cara Bergeron
Jul 18, 2012, 11:29:25 AM7/18/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
What comes to mind immediately is part of Lopez's thesis: as the commercial revolution got underway, merchants became specialists. Even agriculture became specialized, especially agriculture closely related to commerce--such as the wool/silk/textiles industries. What happens in one sector changes our brains to accommodate a similar idea in another sector (at least that seems like common sense to me). If we have specialization in agriculture, then why not in government as well? Through itinerant judges, the king was able to extend his hold over the legal system, thereby ensuring that his own interests (later the state's interests) were maintained over and above those of his local vassals. He became the name that men associated with justice, because his agents were the ones providing it. And the certainty, or at least the illusion of justice, is a powerful force to direct the loyalty of men.
Cara
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Chris Schlect
Jul 18, 2012, 3:43:57 PM7/18/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Great. To this collection of factors I would add that the clerical specialties emerged originally within the church during the 11th century set a pattern of bureaucratic governance that kings began to appropriate. Lords and kings took their cues from church management.
CRS
CRS
Brian & Cara Bergeron
Jul 18, 2012, 7:17:53 PM7/18/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
What sorts of clerical specialties? Bede mentions monks, nuns, abbots, abbesses, popes, deacons, archdeacons, archcantors, and bishops. I cannot think of others. Does he even mention archbishops? Then, in the Carolingian period, Brown mentions Charles' bureaucrats, educators specifically, having their origin within the church. Can you provide a quick list of a few other specializations within the Church? Thanks!
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
Chris Schlect
Jul 19, 2012, 12:51:03 AM7/19/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Cara,
Note that I said the 11th century, which is beyond the chronological scope of both Bede and Brown. The book on the Investiture controversy will be helpful here, and also Oakley.
The abridged, oversimplified version of the story is that, within the church there emerged specialists in ecclesiastical law and church finance, among other positions. Preceded such developments in England and France.
CRS
Note that I said the 11th century, which is beyond the chronological scope of both Bede and Brown. The book on the Investiture controversy will be helpful here, and also Oakley.
The abridged, oversimplified version of the story is that, within the church there emerged specialists in ecclesiastical law and church finance, among other positions. Preceded such developments in England and France.
CRS
George Harrell
Jul 19, 2012, 10:07:57 AM7/19/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Out of curiosity, a thought: it appears that specialization, while very helpful with management, ends up creating distance between those governing and those being governed. I'm not at all opposed to specialization, but it seems that (while this is just one factor among many) specialization in the church led to a distancing between those holding the keys and the worshipers, just as specialization in the government led to the end of regionalization and localized loyalty, ushered in centralization, and depersonalized politics for the commoners. It's this depersonalization that I'm concerned about. Am I right to see specialization as one of the leading causes of this?
-George
Cara
Joe Rigney
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hist-504?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
George Harrell
Jul 19, 2012, 10:12:33 AM7/19/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Also, it's interesting from what you've said here, Mr. Schlect, and noted before by several others, that Strayer only sees evolution and change from within the governmental structure, and the idea that the ecclesiastical body might have influenced it isn't on his radar.
-George
Chris Schlect
Jul 19, 2012, 11:22:44 AM7/19/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Quick answer is yes.
I would add that specialization does not occur in a vacuum. It is facilitated by improvements in transportation, communication, literacy etc. A person cannot increase jurisdictional reach without transportation and travel. And often it is documents and records that do the traveling; hence, communication and literacy.
This is how a faraway guy is enabled do a better job than your next door neighbor at dispensing justice, managing finances, building widgets, or whatever his "specialty" might be.
CRS
I would add that specialization does not occur in a vacuum. It is facilitated by improvements in transportation, communication, literacy etc. A person cannot increase jurisdictional reach without transportation and travel. And often it is documents and records that do the traveling; hence, communication and literacy.
This is how a faraway guy is enabled do a better job than your next door neighbor at dispensing justice, managing finances, building widgets, or whatever his "specialty" might be.
CRS
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hist-504/-/wqHQtUpewHYJ.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+u...@googlegroups.com.
Cara Bergeron
Jul 19, 2012, 10:58:00 PM7/19/12
to hist...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the clarification. Actually, Strayer mentions canon law as one of two genres practiced in the Middle Ages--Roman law and canon law. As I was reading Pope Leo's letter to Kenulf of Mercia, I noticed that the wording seemed to take many more precautions against misunderstandings than were common in the letters of the popes in Bede's history. Specialization means that there are lawyers to fine tune every shade of meaning and cover every eventuality. At least that's the legal end of specialization.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages