Well, I don't know how much developed intellectual capacity they had, but as far as I can tell blood libel was almost universally accepted (among Christians anyway) in Medieval Europe as a fact of the world, like the sun rising in the east, water being wet, and the existence of dragons. If your society has a consensus about x, 95% of the time the members of the society are going to agree with the consensus.
Look at the example of the Beilis trial (the Russian Empire's last blood libel trial, in 1913, in which a Jew was accused of ritually murdering a Christian child). The jury was composed of Ukrainian peasants. That they were not fanged, raving anti-Semites out for blood is shown by the fact that the accused was in fact found not guilty. However, everybody in the jury did believe that blood libel was a reality and did, in fact, conclude that the child had been a victim of Jewish ritual murder, but not by this guy.
--- Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> This is true. However, how could anyone with the
> developed
> intellectual capacity required for openness to
> rational critique have
> become intellectually invested in the idea to begin
> with?
>
> Ted
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Mataiotes mataioteton, eipen ho Ekklasiastes, mataiotes mataioteton, ta panta mataiotes.