Was the Roman Empire really glorious ?

[Odovacar]

Will you also deny that the Elizabethan Age, with its Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Elyot, is but a slavish imitation of Renaissance Italy, and its leading writers treated middle ages with contempt?

While italian culture was fashionable then everywhere, the english and german renaissance had unique features, as you can see on Dürer's pictures, and in dramas.

I dont know anything as remotely great dramatical work as Shakespeare's from Italy..."slavish" was it really not.
The english drama school emerged from universities.

How about Erasmus and other Humanists, the leading reformers of the "Early Modern Period", visiting medieval universities and arguing ferociously about the imbecility of scholastic philosophy? Who has won, considering the present day? Erasmus, or Anselm? It's not even close.

Erasmus had little infuence in philosophy itself. To tell the truth, he was not a philosopher, just like Luther wasnt.

Truly, Bacon flagged the scholastics like hell, however cartesianism and continetal philosophy in general continued medieval trends. For example Descartes reasoning about God.

Bacon, is important to notice, did not see the role of mathematics (then an ideal rather than natural science) in the upcoming scientifical progress.

[Ludicus]

<SigOne Mode>. Mindless Greek and Roman taboos on the dissection of human corpses reduced Galen to dissecting pigs and dogs in an attempt at understanding human anatomy.

Well, because his knowledge was derived from the most part from animal (principally the Barbary ape) dissection, Galen made many mistakes, especially concerning the internal organs. For example: he incorrectely assumed that the rete mirabile (plexus of blood vessels at the base of the brain of ungulate animals, was also present in humans. In addition (he was a dogmatic authoritarian) he sometimes postuleted the presence of structures not there in order to fit..his theories
Example: although normally there are no direct connections between between the left and the right heart chambers, Galen "found" openings in the dividing septum to fit his theorical system in which blood had to pass from one side to other.

Siggy's boring Medieval bashing seems to be getting contagious.

Hmm....no

During the " Dark Ages" many of the technical advances of Greco-Roman surgery had been entirely lost. It was the Christian belief in the meditation of the Holy Ghost as the only possible cure led to the gradual abandonment of all save the simplest procedures (amputation, tooth extraction, bloodletting). Also the Muslim school (notable exeption, the followers of Albucasis) abandoned many surgical procedures.
As a consequence, only a limited knowledge of anatomy was needed and (the reason behind the last post,"Scholars of later centuries swallowed his descriptions whole, correct and incorrect.." ) even the grossly distorted translators´s versions of Galenic porcine anatomy provided sufficient guide.

The correction of Galen's many errors actually began in the Middle Ages, thanks to the Medieval revival of human dissection.

Yes and No. Let´s take a look into the past:

Salicetti, physician at Verona (1210-77) wrote the first known treatise on regional anatomy. His pupil Guido Lanfranchi, in his Cyrurgia Magna (1296, Paris) attempted a reconciliation between surgery and internal medicine.
Guy de Chauliac (1300-68) was the best surgeon of his time and encouraged a strong foundation in anatomy.
During the medieval period, along with the gradual development of surgery, there was increased attention paid to anatomy, so yes,there was a revival of dissecting human cadavers in the 14th century.
Until then, the Salernitans had (earlier) confined their studies to animal dissection, and the Arabists had relied on anatomy lessons from ancient works, especially of Galeno.

Nevertheless, the earliest dissections in the Middle Ages appear to have a medico-legal purpose (determining the cause of death,etc).
The best of medieval dissectors was Mondino de Luzzi (Bologna); however, his treatise Anathomia (1316) was more an instruction book in dissecting techniques than a study of anatomy.
First published at Padua in 1487, it went through nearly forty editions and remained the standard text (based on his own dissections to prove Galen's theories/ in spite of numerous Galenic errors ) until the time of Vesalius: De humani corporis fabrica of 1543, one of the greatest books in the history of men.
The scheme of organization used by Mondino (whereby those parts which decomposed most rapidly were first discussed) was abandoned, and each of the major organs (internal organs, bones, muscles,etc) was discussed separetely, and the relationships of all these structures were also considered.

Vesalius wrote of his surprise at finding numerous errors in the work of Galeno, and much has been made of his refusal to accept something on faith solely because it was found in Galen.
His former teacher, Jacques DuBois, was a complete Galenist, whose only retort upon learning the differences between certain structures as seen by Vesalius and as described by Galen was that "mankind must have changed in the intervening 12 hundred years" !

[gaius valerius]

Sure, of course the peasants matter. But who educates those peasants? You tell me. Suppose a peasant was going to say, I love this scholastic stuff, I'm going to send my kids to the scholastic schools? Erasmus will spend a whole day explaining to him the evils of scholasticism to him. So that the peasant will now think that maybe his old idea was wrong. Or even if he remains unconvinced, his son will start holding different opinions, because on the one hand there will simply be fewer scholastic schools to choose from, and more Humanistic ones, and in those Humanistic schools he won't learn anything medieval, but will study Classical Latin, and Greek, for 10 years, and will learn to write in Latin better than in his own original language.

Thus, in a couple of generations, the great-grandsons of medieval men will come to believe that medieval art, medieval institutions, medieval religious practice, medieval philosophy, were all wrong and misguided, and he will in some form start accepting Renaissance art, Renaissance institutions, Renaissance religion, Renaissance philosophy. In short, he will become modern..

Strangely enough that never happened. Not even during the Enlightenment. As Tim Blanning pointed out so well in 'The Pursuit of Glory'.

You keep repeating that as a mantra, but I'm sorry, simply by itself and without any evidence to support that fact. I offered you actual, specific facts for how social institutions existing in the Renaissance were created ex nihilo, from scratch, by Renaissance reformers living in that time period. In other words, those institutions did not slowly evolve towards their Renaissance state, but were created from scratch, by Renaissance leaders who said, "Oh wait, Quintilian is a thousand times better than the latest medieval education, so we will throw out medieval teaching, and institute our schools on the basis of our Roman teacher."

So you can't simply maintain your mantra about how "Late Middle Ages" in some vague way "outlined" some aspects in Renaissance society. Social institutions are built by men. If some men, which I point to, rebuilt their social institutions from scratch, you will have to show me counter-evidence of other men, building and generally maintaining their respective institutions based on Medieval tradition.

I'm not even denying that there were such men. Renaissance wasn't built in one day. I'm just surprised you can't name any, since you clearly seem educated about the period.

That whole mass of illerate peasants for one, you claim the got 'educated', reality was quite different. Enlightenment as I said never touched the lower echelons of society. No, they were more touched by pietism, jansenism, methodism, etc. Goethe and Schiller were perhaps a 1000 times more popular than Voltaire. The age of Reason was just as much the age of Religion.

As for the socio-economic foundations they are quite clear. Peasant, estate owning nobles in a feudal society, from the late Middle Ages onward proto-capitalism (the dialectic evolution of feudalism and capitalism alongside one and another), the specific merchant class (quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen), the specific role of cities (quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen), the vital importance of parliaments (again quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen), etc.

Anyways, as I said the cultural shift (in the upper echolons of society) did not take away that the medieval socio-economic and political structures remained intact and thus we have a continuous historical evolution since at least the Late Middle Ages onward.

[SigniferOne]

That whole mass of illerate peasants for one, you claim the got 'educated', reality was quite different. Enlightenment as I said never touched the lower echelons of society. No, they were more touched by pietism, jansenism, methodism, etc. Goethe and Schiller were perhaps a 1000 times more popular than Voltaire. The age of Reason was just as much the age of Religion.

And yet, we do call it the Age of Reason. Every textbook does. Why?

the specific merchant class (quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen)

Distinct, how?

the specific role of cities (quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen)

Distinct, how?

the vital importance of parliaments (again quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen), etc

Surely you're not comparing a medieval "parliament" to the Athenian Areopagus Council, or to the Senate?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

It hasn't just become contagious; it's been contagious, this medieval bashing, in every Western textbook since the 15th century onwards. Only in the 19th century, at long and safe distance from medieval fanaticism and monasticism, learned gentlemen started rebuilding gothic cathedrals and dressing themselves up as gothic knights -- Sir Walter Scott being a notorious example.

Actually, Medieval bashing didn't really end until the Twentieth Century, when people actually put aside both their irrational prejudice against the period and their equally irrational romanticisation of it and actually studied it in detail for the first time. I know you don't like to read books that might disturb your hermetically-sealed and totally outdated cartoon view of history, but those with open minds might want to check out Norman Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages for a history of how the proper study of the Middle Ages began in the Twentieth Century and began to overturn centuries of ignorance and myth about the period.

People who actually bother to study the Middle Ages also tend to avoid silly blunders like this:

What, are you going to deny that Melanchthon stands behind all of Germany's modern education? That he threw out medieval scholastic pedagogy, and instituted a first century AD Roman, Quintilian?

That would be the Quintilian that was the basic text for the Medieval study of Grammar since the time of Cassiodorus in the Sixth Century?

"The heart of the academic program was the “trivium” …. However grammar was not a narrowly confined discipline as we think of it today; it encompassed the study of language itself, modes of expression, and meaning. The study of grammar began with the reading of classical authors, such as Vergil, the poets Juvenal, Horace and Ovid and the playwright Terence. For rhetoric, the basic texts were Cicero’s work, “On the Orator”, and a book written at the end of the First Century A.D. by an orator-teacher, Quintilian."
(J.N. Claster, The Medieval Experience: 300-1400, p. 130)

Oooops!


Your other questions are the usual silliness and are riddled with similar errors. Your problem is that you aren't critiquing the Middle Ages, you're critiquing some weird, ignorant Eighteenth Century caricature of it. Which is why your shots always fly wide.

@Ludicus: That "<SigOne Mode>" marker meant I was joking. I was simply showing how stupid and clumsy his kind of one-eyed, rabid fanboy, value judgement riddled attempts at "analysis" are.

[gaius valerius]

And yet, we do call it the Age of Reason. Every textbook does. Why?

Perhaps you should read more than titles? I advise 'the Pursuit of Glory' by Tim Blanning. The Enlightenment is striking yet it needs to be put in perspective.

Distinct, how?

Their independance from political control and their subsequent political assertivity.

Distinct, how?

The relationship between city-rural hinterland. As Weber showed. Yes there are classicists that disagree (I think Rostoftzeff). In short the classic city was a parasite on the hinterland, the medieval (and onwards) city was a production center on its own.

Surely you're not comparing a medieval "parliament" to the Athenian Areopagus Council, or to the Senate?

What are you talking about? Clearly you have no idea what I mean. The medieval Parliament was a vital institution in the sociopolitical evolution in Europe. Especially in the case of England. This has nothing to do with comparison, this has to do with its unique role regarding fiscality.

[conon394]

The relationship between city-rural hinterland. As Weber showed. Yes there are classicists that disagree (I think Rostoftzeff). In short the classic city was a parasite on the hinterland, the medieval (and onwards) city was a production center on its own.

More than a few scholars disagree… Weber’s ideals about the parasitic classical city are I think rather out of date - they go hand and glove with Moses I. Finley technological stagnation argument.

This has nothing to do with comparison, this has to do with its unique role regarding fiscality..

How is a medieval parliament fiscalitly unique?

[gaius valerius]

More than a few scholars disagree… Weber’s ideals about the parasitic classical city are I think rather out of date - they go hand and glove with Moses I. Finley technological stagnation argument.

And many still agree. Finley is contested as well. But that's what scholary debate is about.

How is a medieval parliament fiscalitly unique?

In the way it controlled taxation, had a financial stranglehold over their lord. They were an important feature of most parts of medieval Europe and were to play a vital role in the further development of western civ (for example in England).

[conon394]

And many still agree.

The problem is Weber and Finely both basically look for medieval institutions and if they don't find them in exactly the medieval form assume the they don't exist or depend on highly suspect analysis of fiscal transactions say with loans for example.

edit: for example the lack of guilds in city rule is seen as a bad thing but the medieval guild would almost certainly be seen a bad quasi-aristocratic and tyranical institution in democratic Athens or Rhodes so it absence does not speak to economic primitiveness but the relative openness of the political system.

Also they over rely on two things using a Parasitic Imperial capital – Rome, and misprinting evidence from Athens – for example completely ignoring Athens role as a credit/money producing center and as non parasitic as Florence, or the Dutch…

edit: Also both men are firmly rooted in what amounts to a mercantalist econmic analysis - if Athens imports X they look to find some good to balance it or else it is a parasitic city.

In the way it controlled taxation. They were an important feature of most parts of medieval Europe and were to play a vital role in the further development of western civ (for example in England).

I guess I was looking for more elaboration on this point.

[SigniferOne]

Perhaps you should read more than titles? I advise 'the Pursuit of Glory' by Tim Blanning. The Enlightenment is striking yet it needs to be put in perspective.

Nevertheless, you miss the strength of my argument. Why do we call it the Age of Reason? And we do call it that -- just open any textbook. Surely it doesn't mean that every single peasant in this age was a rational philosopher. Why is it then "The Age of Reason" in every textbook, if you had guys like Schiller, if you had religious mystics of various kinds.

the proper study of the Middle Ages began in the Twentieth Century and began to overturn centuries of ignorance and myth about the period.

Did it begin to even overturn the ignorance and myth of people living in the middle ages and despising it? Some pencil-pusher came along 500 years later, to tell them how their life was really like, eh? It's a bit like some guy coming in 2,500 AD to teach you about what the constitution of Australia is like. It would be sheer nonsense.

The "myth and ignorance" about the middle ages did not come in the 19th century, or at some point in the 18th century, or anything like that. As you must know, 19th century saw a romantic revival of interest in medievalism and chivalry.

The "myth and ignorance" began with men living in the Middle Ages. It began with Petrarch, writing in 1300s that "living in this middle age", "we must awake or die". It began with Ficino, who wrote in 1492, "This century has restored to light the liberal arts, which were almost extinct: grammar, poetry, rhetoric, painting, sculpture, architecture, music". If you're prepared to call Petrarch "ignorant" about the Middle Ages, when he lived in them, I'm prepared to consider you lacking any substantive knowledge of Australia as it exists today.

[Ludicus]

Actually, Medieval bashing didn't really end until the Twentieth Century, when people actually put aside both their irrational prejudice against the period and their equally irrational romanticisation of it and actually studied it in detail for the first time..........to check out Norman Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages for a history of how the proper study of the Middle Ages began in the Twentieth Century and began to overturn centuries of ignorance and myth about the period.

Another source: Early Medieval Europe 300 – 1000 (1999), Roger Collins. He states, “The centuries covered by this book constitute a period of the greatest significance for the future development, not only of Europe, but in the longer term, of much else of the world.”
He does not even bother to mention that he isn’t using the term "Dark Ages".

According to Hannam, the great weight of the assault on the middle ages carried on into the 20th century:

"Popular historians who based their work other on popular histories perpetuated the myth. Television shows by Carl Sagan, James Burke and Jacob Bronowski handed the thesis onto a new generation. Even when someone discovered evidence of reason or progress in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it could easily be labelled ‘early-Renaissance’ so as to preserve negative connotations of the adjective ‘medieval’.....However, despite the efforts of today’s historians to rehabilitate the period, in one sense the ‘Dark Ages’ remain as shadowy as ever. Most people know very little about them"

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Did it begin to even overturn the ignorance and myth of people living in the middle ages and despising it? Some pencil-pusher came along 500 years later, to tell them how their life was really like, eh? It's a bit like some guy coming in 2,500 AD to teach you about what the constitution of Australia is like. It would be sheer nonsense.

This argument is what's sheer nonsense - see this new thread for details.

[gaius valerius]

Nevertheless, you miss the strength of my argument. Why do we call it the Age of Reason? And we do call it that -- just open any textbook. Surely it doesn't mean that every single peasant in this age was a rational philosopher. Why is it then "The Age of Reason" in every textbook, if you had guys like Schiller, if you had religious mystics of various kinds.

Because it is seen as a movement of utmost importance - mind you, which I won't say it wasn't. But that is a subjective judgement, I love Voltaire, I love Montesquieu, however, history isn't about what you like, but how it in reality was. We don't live in a time (not here at least I suppose) were we praise the mystic devotion, the belief in the unseen, no, we praise rational thinking, etc. At the time itself many contemporaries were bedazzled by the Enlightening, thought they had reached the epithome of humanity. They were however biased by their joy, their passion for their reason. Reality was different. It was truly just as much the Age of Religion as it was the Age of Reason. Never had there been more churches, religious men/women, etc then ever before. It was a time that saw one of the worst excesses in the form of witchhunting. It was a time when Goethe and Schiller enjoyed a popularity far greater than Voltaire (especially the latter). As I said when the French government relaxed their censur in the 1778-79 period - ironically also the moment of Voltaire's apotheosis, truly splendid to read - the subsequent flood of reprints was for about 2/3 religious (over 2 000 000 copies).

I'm not praising this and of course I value the heritage of the Enlightenment more than that of what would be known as Romanticism (I'm atheïst so that speaks for itself), but the fact remains that if we want to be historically correct we need to put the 'Age of Reason' in contemporary perspective.

I guess I was looking for more elaboration on this point.

'Parliament'-like institutions weren't unique for Europe (as in councils of the subjects), but their role as regarding to the state was quite distinct. The privilege of having control over (direct) taxation wasn't something you'd find in China or in the Classic Age. Especially for England this is seen best of all. Through their financial stranglehold on the sovereign a process of modernisation/democratisation was started. A real notion of a budget, the strenghtening of the state all came from the parliament. In France for example the parliament was made mouth-death by Louis XIV and his successors (although Louis XV had his share of problems as well) but that as we know came back with a vengeance.

[conon394]

gaius valerius

Err yes I’m still kind of lost compared to the original point of argument –

the specific role of cities (quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen), the vital importance of parliaments (again quite distinct from anything the Classic age had seen), etc.

I guess I would agree what parliaments, or specifically parliaments and councils did in England etc. The Imperial/ late imperial system certainly lacked then in a national way. So maybe I just objecting to the overly broad statement of saying ‘again quite distinct from anything the Classic Age had seen’ since I don’t see any unique power compared to the ruling bodies and assemblies of the earlier republics, oligarchies and democracies.

edit:

in particular -

The privilege of having control over (direct) taxation wasn't something you'd find in China or in the Classic Age

huh?

Again i suppose you the Imperium and the fact that ultimately the Emperor controlled taxes - but this was if you will a retrogression from the Republic or the Classical polis.

[gaius valerius]

The Republic didn't have a sovereign ruler opposed to the Senate? (unless you mean the consuls). Not in the way the Parliaments opposed their king.

Or elaborate me on why you presume they did.

[SigniferOne]

"Compared to Oedipus the King or Antigone, the typical medieval drama was formless, illogical, and intellectually insulting. While it might please the ignorant masses, it was wholly unsuitable for the enlightened circles of university and court. In the two European countries where humanism had penetrated the upper classes most successfully, Italy and France, medieval drama was attacked so vehemently that it eventually disappeared."
-O.B. Hardison, Shakespeare Quarterly, 31.3 (1980)