The Good The Bad And The Airborne Summary

The article The Good, the Bad and the Airborne: Levitation and the History of Impossible in Early Modern Europe, author Carlos M. N. Eire makes a myriad of claims about the historical prevalence of holy levitation. The physical impossibility of holy levitation is irrelevant to study; understanding levitation will aid in the understanding of people who believed it was possible. In this way Eire favours synchrony over a traditional diachronic narrative. Furthermore, he infers that it is the job of the historian to compile documentation to aid in the understanding of the past, not to impose modern metaphysical opinions on it. Finally, the article frequently disavows periodization (medieval, early modern, etc.) which is so prevalent in historical practice. I personally agree
Additionally, I believe that through these claims one can infer the author’s underlying viewpoint. Throughout the article the author makes reference to understanding history from a synchronic perspective; while the notion of levitation in any form seems ridiculous in our time, that is relatively unimportant when it comes to understanding the people of the past. This is and example of a key facet diachronism: the relation and comparison of one point in time to another (usually the present). This is what Eire is arguing against: “if the past itself includes bizarre beliefs, are the beliefs to be dismissed, simply because they seem illogical.” It would be easy for a scholar to dismiss widespread claims of levitation. However, in doing so the scholar would be projecting modern values on historical documentation, thus providing an incomplete picture of that period in time. The fact that the people of that time believed in levitation is of use when trying to assemble a