Of the People: A History of the United States; Third Edition; not only tells the history of America--of its people and places; of its dealings and ideals--but it also unfolds the story of American democracy; carefully marking how this country's evolution has been anything but certain; from its complex beginnings to its modern challenges. This comprehensive survey focuses on the social and political lives of people--some famous; some ordinary--revealing the compelling story of America's democracy from an individual perspective; from across the landscapes of diverse communities; and ultimately from within the larger context of the world.
#329075 in Books Nina Caputo 2016-07-15Original language:English 7.00 x .80 x 9.90l; .0 #File Name: 0190226366256 pagesDebating Truth The Barcelona Disputation of 1263 a Graphic History
Review
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful. Provides new insights into Nachmanides disputation and the issues of his timeBy Ben RothkeRabbi Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides); was one of the greatest sages in Jewish history. When he was nearly 70 years old; he was placed in a difficult and somewhat untenable situation. Called to Barcelona; he had to defend his Jewish faith in a Catholic dominated country; summoned by a Catholic king who was raised by and had loyalty to Pope Innocent II. While he was given full reign to defend his faith; Nachmanides knew the reality was such that he could easily have won the battle; but lost the war. Which is precisely what occurred.Many English readers know of Nachmanides own account via the 1983 Charles Chavel translation of The disputation at Barcelona. In an interesting new book Debating Truth: The Barcelona Disputation of 1263; A Graphic History; author Nina Caputo (Associate Professor - Department of History at the University of Florida) has written not only an updated translation of Nachmanides account; but that of interlocutor also. More interestingly; the book provides a fascinating overview of the times and circumstances which lead to the disputation.As to A Graphic History; that refers to the first part of the book which uses about 70 pages of illustrations (superbly done by Liz Clarke) to provide a deeper narrative to the story. Caputo writes that while illustrations provide additional depth to the story; it comes with its own unique set of challenges; mainly as how the character is portrayed can change the nature of the story. One thing I noticed that amongst the many illustrations; Nahmanides is never pictured wearing a skullcap. That striking absence is not explained.The disputation of 1263 found Nahmanides summoned from his residence in Girona to Barcelona at the request of King James I of Aragon to debate with Paul; a Dominican Friar and lapsed Jew; regarding the Messiah in Judaism and Christianity. The debate was before a panel of judges lead by James. While James gave him liberty to speak as he wished; Nahmanides was understandably hindered by the concern of offending the Christians; and the serious repercussions that would bring.Caputo writes that disputations traces its roots as a philosophical form back to classic antiquity. Works by Plato and Aristotle use the dialogue form; as it is both pleasing and a compelling means of demonstrating the power and agility of a disciplined human intellect.As to the reason for the Barcelona disputation; members of the Dominican and Franciscan mendicant orders made extensive use of disputation in their campaigns to eradicate heresy. It’s not ironic then that these same mendicant orders accused Nachmanides of blasphemy when he later wrote his account.The book notes that while disputations were often intended as a missionary tool; they were an overall failure. Many who converted during those times did so not due to theological issues or that the disputation arguments persuaded them. Rather they converted due to the fact that circumstances of Jewish life had become untenable. That is similar to the thesis of Leaving the Jewish Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History (Princeton University Press; ISBN 978-0691004792); by Todd Endelman.In translating Friar Paul’s account; Caputo astutely notes that while he and Nahmanides agreed on the overall notion of the disputation; the two narratives told opposite stories. Nachmanides account showed that he had won the debate and left with a cash gift from the king. While Paul’s account said that he was utterly defeated.Caputo also writes of scholars such as Heinrich Denifle who felt that Nachmanides account of the disputation was meant to mask the fact that he failed miserably in his task. Denifle also critiqued Heinrich Graetz in that he didn’t take into other sources; or accept Friar Paul’s interpretation of the Talmudic passages in question.It’s incredulous on the part of Denifle to think that Friar Paul’s poorly constructed Talmudic interpretations actually had merit. It’s fair to say that when summoned to Barcelona and authorized to speak freely; Nachmanides clearly knew that it was a Hobson's choice and even if he did fail miserably in his task as Denifle thought; it’s simply that it was not a level playing field.Denifle saw these disputations as similar to the Lincoln–Douglas debates. The reality is that it would be appropriate to switch James I to Kim Jong-un and Barcelona to Pyongyang; to understand the reality that Nachmanides faced.The milieu in which the disputations occurred shows the depth of the interfaith hostility that in the medieval Crown of Aragon. For the Jews; any disputation was an unwelcomed disruption that challenged the community’s sense of place and security. But Caputo notes that conversely; the fact that these disputations were able to take place; showed a very high level of social and cultural integration of Jews is a Christian society.Caputo has created a work that is intellectually fascinating and visually stimulating. By using the text of the disputations as the background; this is a most interesting book that details the events that lead to summoning Nachmanides to Barcelona; the disputation; and his ultimate exile from Aragon.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. A report of a famous debate where each side claimed victoryBy Israel DrazinThis book describes the famous debate that Nachmanides (1195-1270); also known as Ramban; of the had with Pablo Christiani in 1263 before the king of Aragon; James I. There are two accounts of the four- day debate. One; composed in Latin; was written by church officials claiming that they won the debate. The second; written to set the record straight; was composed by Nachmanides in Hebrew. Nachmanides’ account has been translated and is found in “The Disputation at Barcelona†by Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel; a highly respected scholar who is an expert on the writings of Nachmanides. The king agreed to Nachmanides request that he could speak freely as long as he did not defame Christianity. However; Nachmanides must answer Pablo's questions and not ask questions. The king also agreed to Nachmanides' request that the debate be limited to three issues: did the messiah already come; is the messiah God; and whether the Jews hold the true Torah; or whether the Christians fulfill it. According to the account by Nachmanides; the debaters addressed the first two questions; but not the third. N Nachmanides' account shows that Pablo was incorrect regarding every issue he raised: he frequently misunderstood what he was quoting and often tried to prove a point from a source taken out of context. Nachmanides reports that the king congratulated him for arguing a wrong idea extremely well and gave him a large sum of money for participating in the debate.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Lots of potential but not consistently effectiveBy MNhistorianI have very mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand; I love the idea and the structure: a graphic novel approach to presenting the material; followed by translated primary sources; some short essays providing context; a discussion of the historiography; study questions; and a reading list. Wow! But there are two things that got in the way of my feeling it was entirely successful. One is the way that much of the graphic section is approached. The stories in graphic novels (of which I am a big fan) are driven by dialog. Yes; there is often some narration and panels of action that is being described in that narration; but they depend heavily on characters saying things to each other. The section that covers the Barcelona disputation itself does that; but other sections fall flat. In one; for example; a series of letters and edicts from King James I are chopped up into small bits; each of which appears in a panel superimposed over some vaguely related activity; such as Dominicans standing around holding books. The graphics seem utterly superfluous. Caputo made the choice -- the wrong one; I think -- to treat those particular primary sources as inviolable texts rather than finding a way to turn them into something more active; and conveying the information in a dialog form. Since she gave a translation of the original edicts in the primary source section; I don't see why she couldn't have taken some liberties with the format of the information in the graphic section. Students would still have been able to encounter the text on which she based the dialog. My other hesitation is about Part III and to a certain extent Part IV. Some of the material is great. I especially like the way she helps students to understand how medieval Spain is unlike the parts of Europe that are usually held up as normative. But there is too much in those sections that is just too complex and would go right over the head of my own students; at least those who aren't experience history majors. And those majors would probably find other parts too simplistic for them. In other words; I don't know that I found the text pitched consistently to the same audience. As a teacher; this book has given me some ideas for teaching; and I'm not sorry that I spent time reading it. (Oxford University Press sent me a free copy on spec; I didn't request it.) But I don't think I can assign it; which is too bad because this sort of approach to presenting history has a lot of potential.
