On Tue, 25 May 2004 05:48:05 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dark Ages, a period of stagnation and obscurity in > > literature and art, > > lasting, according to Hallam, nearly 1000 years, > > from about 500 to > > about 1500 A. D.. See Middle Ages, under Middle. > > Does not agree with available evidence, nor what > professional historians say about it. Quoting from a > dictionary is IMHO NOT a good debating technique!
YHO is not accurate. The dictionaries were used because "Dark Ages" is a recognized term with which you disagree. Not being a historian I am not obligated to use more than general terms. > > "Historians working on the problem of the > > Renaissance have never been > > able to decide when the period began, or even when > > it ended, although > > they all admit that a Renaissance did indeed occur. > > Some see its > > beginning in the 12th century, while others, in the > > 14th century. An > > even larger question looms: if there was such a > > thing as the > > Renaissance, regardless of when it began or ended, > > for whom was the > > Renaissance, a Renaissance? Did it affect all people > > at the same time? > > Or, was its impact felt only on a relatively small > > number of people in > > Northern Italian city-states, France, England and > > Holland?" > > http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture1c.html > > Not entirely true. 3 different viewpoints on this > issue: a) those who see a definite disconnect with > earlier periods worthy of the term Rennaisance, b) > those that se the Rennaisance as a transitional period > between the MA and the early-modern period, and c) > those who do not see strong evidence for a > Rennaisance. I fall in the latter camp; many of the > elements pointed out as being typically "Rennaisance" > are indeed elements carried over from the MA, or > developed therein. > > > However, the 12th Century with the rise of more > > secularist scholars > > actually fits in better with my statements above. > > http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture26b.html > > Then you should be more precise with your dates! Where in the Hell did I even use any dates!? This is my post which brought this on: >> At 07:03 PM 5/24/04, Gary Denton wrote: <snip others> The source material is too heavily edited in most cases to make ready sense. You have to tease out meanings that aren't what the Church was pushing and try to find documents that weren't destroyed. Visualize the Roman Empire as a totalitarian world government and the Catholic Church as the only official religion. Part of the mission of church officials was to remove books and documents that didn't support the Church. After the Western Roman Empire fell this didn't change, it got worse. The Catholic Church had all the centers of learning and was the one transnational authority with real power. There is a reason for the Dark Ages. << >This, > specifically, as well as the rest of the High MA is > why I strongly disagree with your stance. > > Damon. >From your statements you disagree there was a "dark ages." I pointed out "Dark Ages" was in common use even if as I pointed out historians aren't happy with the term and I pointed out why it could be in common use in my next posting. >> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:10:31 -0500 While the term "Dark Ages" is deplored by historians for many reasons, one original motivation for the term, is the lack of knowledge and sources of the time. The other usage of "Dark Ages" is the general view of the poverty, superstitious ignorance, and stagnation during this period. This persisted until the rebirth of reason known as the Renaissance. This opened up a new era of optimism, prosperity, and scientific progress, all made possible by the philosophies of secular humanism and scientific method. I believe that it is due to Church power and their control of education that little is known of the period, superstitious ignorance flourished, and stagnation persisted. YMMV << Then you disagreed about dates when I didn't supply any other than after the "fall of the Western Roman Empire" and I obliged with a historian discussing the dates of the "Renaissance." I pointed out the two periods of time called "Renaissance" and agreed with you that the rise of secular scholars, implied with my first statement, was a good date for the beginning of the "Renaissance" As you point out, historians at this time disagree about the time of the Renaissance and you fall into a modern camp denying there was even a Renaissance. A brief checking of current encyclopedias online indicates the term is still in current use in their historical articles but now note that a few are beginning to refer to it as a "cultural Renaissance." That my use of the terms is acceptable also should have been obvious as the current history professor I quoted uses those terms. I am left to speculate if there is some conservative or religious basis to such strong objection to the term Dark Ages and denial of the Renaissance. Fine, you disagree that there was a Dark Ages to have a Renaissance from. Your view is not universal and had not been taught in my history classes. Perhaps I may have been influenced by Isaac Asimov and Mark Twain. Gary
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
