It had taken a thousand years to win the struggle and secure the triumph of pain seeking...But in a world in which Christianity has triumphed, we have to do the whipping ourselves.
...
This is no mere sadomasochistic fantasy: a vast body of evidence confirms that...the ritualized heirs to St. Benedict's spontaneous roll in the stinging nettles, were widespread in the late Middle Ages.
The ordinary self-protective, pleasure-seeking impulses of the lay public could not hold out against the passionate convictions and overwhelming prestige of their spiritual leaders.
The "ordinary self-protective, pleasure-seeking impulses of the lay public" had held out for a thousand years, according to the author. The same man did write those three entries, really; on pages 107-9; as part of one passage. He just breezily says after "a thousand years" "the public could not hold out" any longer. ?
How much more do nettles sting after 1,000 years?
Greenblatt does not argue well. If what he says is true, the argument should be easy to make: Start with "the vast body of evidence" of early monastic sadomasochism and end with the acceptance of sadomasochism by the society at large. Connect the dots, two dots; how hard can that be? What proves nettlesome is those 1,000 years. Maybe there's no argument to make: Maybe his starting point is wrong; maybe his ending point is wrong; maybe both. Instead of argument from evidence Professor Greenblatt offers tautology.
...
This is no mere sadomasochistic fantasy: a vast body of evidence confirms that...the ritualized heirs to St. Benedict's spontaneous roll in the stinging nettles, were widespread in the late Middle Ages.
The ordinary self-protective, pleasure-seeking impulses of the lay public could not hold out against the passionate convictions and overwhelming prestige of their spiritual leaders.
The "ordinary self-protective, pleasure-seeking impulses of the lay public" had held out for a thousand years, according to the author. The same man did write those three entries, really; on pages 107-9; as part of one passage. He just breezily says after "a thousand years" "the public could not hold out" any longer. ?
How much more do nettles sting after 1,000 years?
Greenblatt does not argue well. If what he says is true, the argument should be easy to make: Start with "the vast body of evidence" of early monastic sadomasochism and end with the acceptance of sadomasochism by the society at large. Connect the dots, two dots; how hard can that be? What proves nettlesome is those 1,000 years. Maybe there's no argument to make: Maybe his starting point is wrong; maybe his ending point is wrong; maybe both. Instead of argument from evidence Professor Greenblatt offers tautology.
