Carolingian Renaissance?
Curt Emanuel
>
> Is there anything else important in the Carolingian Renaissance than this:
> Charlemagne known as Charles the great, and his advisors managed a
> 'renaissance' called the Carolingian Renaissance, also known as the
> "rebirth" of learning and early Christian culture, in which they attempted
> to recreate the Roman Empire of the West as best they could. The effort was
> to formulate a concentration of authority in a central government. The
> Carolingian Renaissance elevated education, the reform of military tactics
> and court manners to a place of learning and standardized handwriting, and
> medieval Latin. Most of the Roman literature that has survived has done so
> because Carolingians gathered up all of the old manuscripts they could find
> and copied as many as they could.
Yeah. First, why the hell does every period of economic growth in the
medieval period have to be called a renaissance?
Second, there are two very major, and a several minor errors in the
statement. Not bad for a hundred words or so.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Pamela Maddison
Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
news:38FFCD...@accs.net...
First things first. For there to be a rebirth there has to be something for
there to be a rebirth _from_. Particularly in the areas where Charlemagne
operated, the big thing had been the continuity: some changes had taken
place, eg the Church was taking a bigger administrative role and the old
Roman admin system had been fading out; Gregory of Tour's History of the
Franks is interesting in this respect. When it came to the texts, nothing
had been lost; he just had them collected and copied... as he did with the
Frankish myths, which his successors had destroyed. The biggest single
innovation was standardising the written script on a variant of Alcuin's
handwriting, producing the most easily legible manuscripts I have had
occasion to come across - the Strasbourg Oaths are as readable as print (and
for a good reason).
But there was nothing for there to be a "renaissance" from, Try to get hold
of Webster & Brown's "The Transformation of the Roman World" AD 400 - 900".
Martin Reznick
>
> Yeah. First, why the hell does every period of economic growth in the
> medieval period have to be called a renaissance?
Why the hell does every uninformed lout have to shoot his mouth off
whenever he thinks he can win a point? Maybe, just maybe, there is more
to the Carolingian and Twelfth Century renaissances than merely economic
growth. I can suggest many, many texts.
>
> Second, there are two very major, and a several minor errors in the
> statement. Not bad for a hundred words or so.
Better take the log out of your own eye before criticizing the mote in
his.
>
> --
> Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
>
>
MR
"The ancient Greeks had a unique way of dealing with situations like
yours, which is why they're all dead. "
-Lloyd Schumner Sr.
Curt Emanuel
>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Curt Emanuel wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah. First, why the hell does every period of economic growth in the
> > medieval period have to be called a renaissance?
>
> Why the hell does every uninformed lout have to shoot his mouth off
> whenever he thinks he can win a point? Maybe, just maybe, there is more
> to the Carolingian and Twelfth Century renaissances than merely economic
> growth. I can suggest many, many texts.
So you believe that we should just toss terms like the renaissance about
whenever we want to? I take it you believe that the characteristics of
development in 8th & 9th century Carolingian, 12th century French, and
14th century Italian societies were virtually identical, since we'll use
the same term to define them?
I just love it when people decide to typify a period with a cheap, easy
label rather than being bothered to actually learn something about it.
Say, why not describe a renaissance in England in the late 9th and 10th
centuries? Or maybe one in Germany in the 6th and 7th?
>
> >
> > Second, there are two very major, and a several minor errors in the
> > statement. Not bad for a hundred words or so.
>
> Better take the log out of your own eye before criticizing the mote in
> his.
OK, I'll help the poor lad with his homework assignment. Where have you
found evidence that the Carolingians (Charlemagne in particular) were
attempting to recreate the Roman Empire rather than form their own,
distinctive domain?
Second, what evidence do you have that the Carolingians a) were the
first to copy Roman documents and b) were responsible for the majority
of it?
If someone wants to post a short answer to a homework essay question
here so we can do it for him, I'd hope they'd have done enough reading
to pick up at least those two basic points. And I'm not inclined to be
polite about it.
Anyway, either of the two overviews by Riche is enough to find out this
much, without going into Notkhar, Einhard, or the RFA.
However, from your comment above, I assume you felt his original
statement was fundamentally correct.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Paul J Gans
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Curt Emanuel wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. First, why the hell does every period of economic growth in the
>> medieval period have to be called a renaissance?
> Why the hell does every uninformed lout have to shoot his mouth off
>whenever he thinks he can win a point? Maybe, just maybe, there is more
>to the Carolingian and Twelfth Century renaissances than merely economic
>growth. I can suggest many, many texts.
>>
>> Second, there are two very major, and a several minor errors in the
>> statement. Not bad for a hundred words or so.
> Better take the log out of your own eye before criticizing the mote in
>his.
Martin, a little decorum would be helpful.
When this newsgroup was in its early days, many folks
refused to believe that the 12th century was anything
but bleak. It was assumed that it was inhabited by
unwashed, illiterate, testosterone poisoned folks who'd
bash you as soon as look at you.
Over time, thanks to folks like Curt, the perception
was changed to where the 12th century renaissance was
accepted as something that actually happened.
By now, many in this group are perhaps ready for an
even more sophisticated view. There seem to have been
very few "revolutions" in the medieval record. The
agricultural "revolution" has gone, the military
"revolution" is fading, and the undoubted vitality of
the 12th century is now seen as the result of continuous
change rather than something sort of special that happened
then.
I think it fair to say that many folks now view the
increasing economic prosperity in north-western Europe
as a major cultural driving force. Life changed. The
social structure changed. Real wealth increased. And
many things flowed naturally from that. There was a
building boom. There was an increase in literacy. There
was an increase in written works to satisfy the needs of
literate folks who now had some free time in which to
read (or be read to). Troubadors surged and new notions
were in the land. Yes, it was a good time to be alive.
This continued into the 13th century unabated. But by
the end of the 13th century real wealth was diminishing,
almost all useful land was under the plow and many today
feel that the carrying capacity of the western Europe had
been reached. Indeed, by 1300 the population was already
dropping.
Now one could call those economic good times a "revolution",
but the term implies a sharp break with the past. Curt
is simply taking that more sophisticated view and noting
that the sharp break may be very hard to find in the normal
evolution of human life.
Exactly the same arguments apply to the Carolingian
renaissance, except that period was aided and abetted
by unified royal power.
It is my opinion, and others will certainly differ, that
to have a revolution of this sort, one must point to significant
and sudden breaks with the past. If they are not apparent
then what one has is an interesting time, but not a
revolutionary time.
If Charles Homer Haskins had called his book "The Henrician
Renaissance", the parallels to Charlemagne would be more
obvious. ;-)
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
erilar
<jste...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
The
> Carolingian Renaissance elevated education, the reform of military tactics
> and court manners to a place of learning and standardized handwriting, and
> medieval Latin. Most of the Roman literature that has survived has done so
> because Carolingians gathered up all of the old manuscripts they could find
> and copied as many as they could.
Standardized HANDWRITING? Carolingian miniscule is not "handwriting"; it
might be considered the printing font of choice of its time, I suppose.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.win.bright.net/~erilarlo
Chris Blakeman
writes
period or the 12th Century tends to make me a little uncomfortable, and
the concentration on the supposed economic Renaissance makes me equally
uncomfortable. What I know about is the Carolingian period, so forgive
me if I stay with that. The terms used at the time for what happened to
the cultural life of late 8th Century Francia are renovatio or
reparatio, and in truth the poets of the court, the heart of this
renewal of poetic output, were continuing the work of Merovingian poets
such as Venantius, who in turn, educated in Ravenna, was continuing an
earlier line of intellectual life (don't get me started on how wrong the
term Dark Ages is). These poets, and I refer to the main Court poets of
Charlemagne: Alcuin, Paul the Deacon, Peter of Pisa, Paulinus of
Aquileia, Angilbert and my particular favourite Theodulf (a Visigoth
possibly born in Narbonne or occupied Spain) were all brought together
by Charles from around Europe. This "Renaissance", therefore is more a
collecting together of the existing talents and intellectual traditions
from several different countries, Monastic institutions where the works
of the classical authors had survived, some better than others, from
where the theological and poetic skills and the skills of the
scriptorium were brought to the Court. Charles interest in literature
and theology and in acquiring the cultural trappings of an emperor (even
before he became one) are the catalyst for this upsurge in poetic and
artistic output, Charles however did not create these talents and
skills, or foster their creation, rather he used his political and
monetary clout to encourage their development, tapping into and drawing
together the various existing talents. Yes, he was a unifying force in
Francia and his Capitularies show that he wanted to spread literacy
around his Kingdom, but this learning and education probably only
filtered down through the top strata of society. To conclude, the
Carolingian period was an important and crucial stage in the development
of the intellectual life of Western Europe, it was a cultural renewal
and a step forward, but not a Renaissance. I was not able to get the
first two postings on this topic, and I may be well off target here, but
I felt that the economic side of things was being emphasised to the
detriment of what I feel was important about the Court of Charlemagne.
Thank you.
--
Chris Blakeman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pamela Maddison
erilar <erila...@SPAMwin.bright.net> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-21...@dal3-harc2-cs-107.win.bright.net...
> In article <%ELL4.58$kH.2...@sapphire.mtt.net>, "Jason Stewart"
> <jste...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> The
> > Carolingian Renaissance elevated education, the reform of military
tactics
> > and court manners to a place of learning and standardized handwriting,
and
> > medieval Latin. Most of the Roman literature that has survived has done
so
> > because Carolingians gathered up all of the old manuscripts they could
find
> > and copied as many as they could.
>
> Standardized HANDWRITING? Carolingian miniscule is not "handwriting"; it
> might be considered the printing font of choice of its time, I suppose.
How very foresighted of them. It was standardised on Alcuin's personal
handwriting, which was quite distinctive; it wasn't "handwriting" in the
modern sense of expressing one's individuality, and there were slight
variations between writers, but it was a major change from earlier scripts
and so legible that I have no problem with photocopies of the Strasbourg
oaths, which is more than I can say for either earlier or later scripts; the
fact that our printing fonts ultimately derive from it may be something to
do with it, or it might simply be a low risk of ambiguity.
And I still think there is far too much continuity in the preceding three
centuries for "renaissance" to be a meaningful term - please, someone,
rebirth from WHAT?
Paul J Gans
I'm coming into this very late, so forgive me if this is
dealt with in the posts yet to come.
While I agree with Pamela, isn't the question better
directed at the 16th century "renaissance"? There
was even *more* continuity there.
What we are dealing with is the fallout from the "old
days" when, for their own reasons, folks decided that
the medieval period was "dark". That's just one
reason why I fight so much against the use of the term
"dark ages". Even if those who use it know what they
mean by it, vast numbers of others do not. This leads
to all sorts of "renaissances". We have at least
three in our time period here: The Carolingian, centered
on 800 AD or slightly before; the 12th Century, centered
on the center of the century or a bit later, and the
so-called "real" Renaissance, which, by many accounts,
was in full swing by 1450.
Now exactly as Pamela asks: rebirth from what?
Yes, I'm an unreconstructed continualist. From
Rome in her heyday (whenever that was) through to
today. I see periods of economic growth and periods
of economic stagnation. I see all sorts of local
variation. But in the main, I see continuity.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Renia Simmonds
Carolingian or any other renaissance), refers (to quote Jebb) to the "the whole
process of transition in Europe from the medieval to the modern order". In a
restricted sens the Renaissance means the revived study, in the new secular as
contrasted with the old monkish spirit, of the literature of classical
antiquity. This revival of learning, as it is also called, was itself a chief
agent in the emancipation of the mind of man from the trammels of effete
dogmatism, and in the creation of a fresh intellectual atmosphere and of fresh
ideals of life. It may be said to have begun in Italy with Petrarch and
Boccaccio. But the real movement dates from the time when Manual Chrysoloras of
Contantinople lectured on greek at the university of Florence, 1396, and
afterwards taught in other Italian cities. henceforth classical studies were
pursued by the new generation of humanists with growing enthusiasm, to which a
further impetus was given when, on the capture of Constantinople by the Turks,
1453, many Greek scholars sought asylum in Italy.
Renia
Edward John Schoenfeld
----------
In article <3918A976...@cwcom.net>, Renia Simmonds
<PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>The Renaissance (that is, the generally accepted Renaissance, as opposed to any
>Carolingian or any other renaissance), refers (to quote Jebb) to the "the whole
>process of transition in Europe from the medieval to the modern order".
For the transition to modernism to merit the name 'renaissance' (= rebirth)
would require that some earlier period (presumably classical antiquity)
share the essential characteristics of modernity. It may have been possible
to maintain that equivalence during the 18th and early 19th centuries, but
it is not possible to do so now and (if it ever did have merit) was probably
a false equivalence at least by 1850 (if not 1750 -- how many working steam
engines and coal mines were there during the time of the Good Emperors?).
So Jebb's characterization is not well taken in current history writing by
people who study more than the 'renaissance' itself (i.e. a 'paradigm shift'
has been/is occurring).
>In a
>restricted sens the Renaissance means the revived study, in the new secular as
>contrasted with the old monkish spirit, of the literature of classical
>antiquity. This revival of learning, as it is also called, was itself a chief
>agent in the emancipation of the mind of man from the trammels of effete
>dogmatism,
I cannot conceive of dogmatism being 'effete,' -- the phrase seems
oxymoronic (narrow dogmatism. strict dogmatism, tendentious dogmatism, etc.
but hardly 'effete').
and in the creation of a fresh intellectual atmosphere and of fresh
>ideals of life. It may be said to have begun in Italy with Petrarch and
>Boccaccio.
Or even Giotto, wrt art history
>But the real movement dates from the time when Manual Chrysoloras of
>Contantinople lectured on greek at the university of Florence, 1396, and
>afterwards taught in other Italian cities. henceforth classical studies were
>pursued by the new generation of humanists with growing enthusiasm, to which a
>further impetus was given when, on the capture of Constantinople by the Turks,
>1453, many Greek scholars sought asylum in Italy.
The secularization of learning is, of course, an important phenomenon, but
it, too, occurred gradually. Chrysoloras lecture may be a place where we,
looking back, choose to see a change, but it in fact simply confirmed
tendencies that had been growing since the foundation of the first
Universities in the 11th century and that had picked up significant momentum
in the earlier 1300s (Petrarch, William of Ockam, Dante, Marsilius of Padua
and many others).
I always find it ironic that the the Humanists chose to mark their
'renaissance' of classical knowledge by changing the style of handwriting to
more closely resemble that of the authentic 'ancient' texts they chose to
use -- which were written out clearly because they were written in
Carolingian miniscule.
Ed
Renia Simmonds
apply to historical eras, sometimes citing paradigm shifts as the reason for doing
so.
Shall we also start a campaign to have the name of The Enlightenment changed? With
hindsight, they weren't all that enlightened, were they? Age of Reason? Blah! Not
reasoned at all, with hindsight. It will have to go. Romantic Movement. Rubbish -
not very romantic, so it also deserves re-definition. I know. Let's just dump the
terms British, or French, or German history (or what you will) on the grounds that
these nations didn't always exist as such, and were not fully peopled by nationals.
So, out go (so far) according to members of this newsgroup, from this and previous
discussions:
Dark Ages
Medieval
Feudal
The Renaissance
Have I missed any? Any more European historical terminologies you all want to get
rid of while we're at it? Do you want to redefine our entire history from the
American perspective? Should I attend an American university to re-learn my British
and European History, because it is beginning to seem that British and perhaps
European Universities don't have a clue about how to study their own history, or the
nature of it.
Don't misunderstand me. As more information comes to light, or as our analytical
techniques become more sophisticated, discussion is bound to arise on the nature and
time-lines of such historical eras, and the names traditionally association with
them. But there is a difference between discussing these matters from within a
historical perspective, and from a modern perspective, which is what I believe is
happening here. This seems to be resulting in a call to dismiss the names and
natures of these eras as irrelevant and old-fashioned, and, indeed, politically
incorrect. You cannot change history, particularly someone else's, nor can you
re-define it to suit modern criteria of your own choosing. You can debate its nature
all you like, but The Renaissance is still called The Renaissance.
Renia
Robert Barrett
: Don't misunderstand me. As more information comes to light, or as our
: analytical techniques become more sophisticated, discussion is bound to
: arise on the nature and time-lines of such historical eras, and the
: names traditionally association with them. But there is a difference
: between discussing these matters from within a historical perspective,
: and from a modern perspective, which is what I believe is happening
: here. This seems to be resulting in a call to dismiss the names and
: natures of these eras as irrelevant and old-fashioned, and, indeed,
: politically incorrect. You cannot change history, particularly someone
: else's, nor can you re-define it to suit modern criteria of your own
: choosing. You can debate its nature all you like, but The Renaissance is
: still called The Renaissance.
Until approximately the 1840s, the word "Renaissance" didn't even exist in
English as a proper noun describing a specific historical period (see the
Oxford English Dictionary for citations dating back no earlier than 1840).
Petrarch's move to work for the Visconti in Milan during the middle of the
14th century may count as history, but a classificatory scheme invented in
the 19th century by Jakob Burckhardt seems to me to be as arbitrary as any
other such method of periodization and therefore subject to change and
revision by historians and other scholars. In other words, "The
Renaissance" is only history insofar as it tells us a lot about the
preconceptions and biases of 19th century scholars and 19th century
culture. It doesn't tell us much of anything regarding what 14th and 15th
century Italians thought about what was going on in their own time, just
as neither More, Shakespeare, or Jonson would ever have referred to their
own cultural moment as "The English Renaissance" or "The Golden Age of
English Literature."
After all, if we want to get truly historical, then we'd better start
referring to the medievals as *moderni*, a term they appropriated from
Cassiodorus. Historically, they thought of themselves as modern--by your
own standards, then, Renia, we should be reclassifying the humanists and
their allies as "politically correct" revisionists who ignored history and
created the Medium Aevum out of their own biases and fears.
<sarcarsm>After all, they were really post-modernists.</sarcasm>
Rob
--
Robert W. Barrett, Jr. * E-mail: rbar...@dept.english.upenn.edu * World
Wide Web: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~rbarrett/index.html * Dept. of
English, Univ. of Pennsylvania * "What makes the muskrat guard his musk?
Courage!" The Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr), *The Wizard of Oz* (1939)
Renia Simmonds
studied classical history. As the development of non-classical history grew as
a discipline, more and more did terminologogies develop to cover later
periods. Of course "Renaissance" man did not see himself as such, nor did
Shakespeare see his times as "The Golden Age of Literature".
However, titles such as "The Renaissance", "The Dark Ages", "Feudal", and so
on, relatively modern terminologies though they may be, do give us a framework
of study, given to us by the scholars of the day, who are not to be dismissed,
just because times have moved on. Remove the framework, and you remove the
area of study, either taking it to the general, or the particular, depending
on the nature of any new definitions. No, my "standards" do not necessarily
involve terming people by the terminologies they gave to themselves, for those
rarely existed in the contemporary time-frame. I only say, who are we to
dismiss the work of past scholars? Most took their studies just as seriously
as do you or I. And their preconceptions and biases, as you put it, were no
stronger than ours. Just based in a different time-frame, and perhaps in a
different continent, depending on your perspective.
Renia
Robert Barrett
: However, titles such as "The Renaissance", "The Dark Ages", "Feudal", and so
: on, relatively modern terminologies though they may be, do give us a framework
: of study, given to us by the scholars of the day, who are not to be dismissed,
: just because times have moved on. Remove the framework, and you remove the
: area of study, either taking it to the general, or the particular, depending
: on the nature of any new definitions.
I'm sorry, but times change, and academic terminologies need to change
with them. Some such changes will be ill-considered (such as
"pre-modern"), but others ("the Long Fifteenth Century" to describe an
English cultural continuum of 1399-1547) will be useful. Scholars are not
so much removing the framework as they are modifying and (hopefully)
improving it, at least for their concerns and interests at the moment (and
understanding that later generations will change the period to better fit
new readings of history).
: No, my "standards" do not necessarily
: involve terming people by the terminologies they gave to themselves, for those
: rarely existed in the contemporary time-frame. I only say, who are we to
: dismiss the work of past scholars? Most took their studies just as seriously
: as do you or I. And their preconceptions and biases, as you put it, were no
: stronger than ours. Just based in a different time-frame, and perhaps in a
: different continent, depending on your perspective.
I don't dismiss the work of Burckhardt or, say, the 19th century scholars
and editors who founded the Early English Text Society. They established
the foundations of the discipline to which I professionally belong.
However, many of their preconceptions and biases have ceased to be useful
and productive components of their work, and it is the job of historians
and other medievalists to change what needs changing. Not every aspect of
past practice deserves preservations. I for one have little interest in
the overly nationalistic and anti-Catholic biases of many of the 19th
century academics who created Middle English studies. And yet if we were
to preserve *those* aspects of their work, much of the interesting studies
done on medieval religion, for example, would not be possible. I see
period categories as just as defensible or disposable an element of
historiography--once they cease to advance knowledge, they should be
redefined or retired.
Brian M. Scott
<PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
[...]
>Don't misunderstand me. As more information comes to light, or
>as our analytical techniques become more sophisticated, discussion
>is bound to arise on the nature and time-lines of such historical eras,
>and the names traditionally association with them. But there is a
>difference between discussing these matters from within a historical
>perspective, and from a modern perspective, which is what I believe
>is happening here.
It is precisely a more historical perspective that has led to modern
skepticism concerning the usefulness of such terms as 'Dark Ages',
'feudalism', and 'Renaissance'.
> This seems to be resulting in a call to dismiss the names and
>natures of these eras as irrelevant and old-fashioned, and, indeed,
>politically incorrect.
Obviously one cannot dismiss the nature of an era as irrelevant,
old-fashioned, or politically incorrect. (I'm not even sure what it
would mean to do so.) One can, however, question whether that nature
has been correctly understood. Were the 'Dark Ages' dark? Was the
'Renaissance' a renaissance? In what sense(s)? To what extent? It
is not useful to let terminology substitute for thought.
> You cannot change history, particularly someone else's,
Are you perhaps under the impression that these questions are a
uniquely American phenomenon?
> nor can you
>re-define it to suit modern criteria of your own choosing.
I haven't seen anyone trying to redefine history. Are you perhaps
confusing periodization and historiographical terminology with
history?
> You can debate its nature
>all you like, but The Renaissance is still called The Renaissance.
Since different people mean rather different things by it, that's open
to question.
Brian M. Scott
Renia Simmonds
> Renia Simmonds (PSim...@cwcom.net) wrote:
>
> : However, titles such as "The Renaissance", "The Dark Ages", "Feudal", and so
> : on, relatively modern terminologies though they may be, do give us a framework
> : of study, given to us by the scholars of the day, who are not to be dismissed,
> : just because times have moved on. Remove the framework, and you remove the
> : area of study, either taking it to the general, or the particular, depending
> : on the nature of any new definitions.
>
> I'm sorry, but times change, and academic terminologies need to change
> with them.
Do they? Why? Does re-naming or re-defining such terminologies add as much to the
sum of knowledge as the empirical analysis of the sources relevant to the time-frame
or social issues being researched? History is dry enough already for that vast
majority of people with little interest in history, or only a basic general interest
in it. As historians, we could be aiming to improve the status of history as a means
to understanding ourselves and our cultures, through change over tiem, but to start
changing such well-recognised terminologies is to automatically exclude most of the
very people we would like to attract. The goal-posts might have moved, and might
need re-painting once in a while, but they still need to be found in the general
area where people expect to find them. History is not only the domain of the
historical scholar; it is the domain of everybody.
> Some such changes will be ill-considered (such as
> "pre-modern"),
In 200 years (or whenever in the future) our own age will be "pre-modern".
> but others ("the Long Fifteenth Century"
I have never heard of this phrase, as far as I recall. Generally, the fifteenth
century is 1399-1485, and 1485-1558 is the Early Tudor Period.
> to describe an
> English cultural continuum of 1399-1547) will be useful.
Continuum of what aspects of our culture?
> Scholars are not
> so much removing the framework as they are modifying and (hopefully)
> improving it, at least for their concerns and interests at the moment (and
> understanding that later generations will change the period to better fit
> new readings of history).
Should we re-name the Hundred Years' War? It lasted 115 years, and was not
continuous, with several gaps and truces in between. The names of historical eras
does not necessarily reflect any actual reality about them, but are names that
people are familiar with. Tinkering with this sort of thing is beginning to smell of
overkill, and meddling for medling's sake. Any modification or "improvement" in any
such framework, can, in reality, be no better than any previous version, and to
suggest that it can, is just plain arrogance, particularly if such modifications
allow that future historians can carry on tinkering. The frameworks and names are
there already, and unless modern and future historians come up with new information
from and including new primary sources, as opposed to new analysis of existing
primary sources, then all that is happening, is that modern subjectivity is
replacing historical subjectivity, which makes no sense.
> : No, my "standards" do not necessarily
> : involve terming people by the terminologies they gave to themselves, for those
> : rarely existed in the contemporary time-frame. I only say, who are we to
> : dismiss the work of past scholars? Most took their studies just as seriously
> : as do you or I. And their preconceptions and biases, as you put it, were no
> : stronger than ours. Just based in a different time-frame, and perhaps in a
> : different continent, depending on your perspective.
>
> I don't dismiss the work of Burckhardt or, say, the 19th century scholars
> and editors who founded the Early English Text Society. They established
> the foundations of the discipline to which I professionally belong.
> However, many of their preconceptions and biases have ceased to be useful
> and productive components of their work, and it is the job of historians
> and other medievalists to change what needs changing.
It's not. It's the job of historians to analyse change over time, using the sources,
not analyse changes in methods of historiography. The latter probably belongs to the
historical controversialist, but not necessarily to the historian.
> Not every aspect of
> past practice deserves preservations. I for one have little interest in
> the overly nationalistic and anti-Catholic biases of many of the 19th
> century academics who created Middle English studies.
Agreed, and yet, those biases might well be long-standing ones, relevant to and
existing in the earlier period. (Replace "Catholic" with "Church".) This can have
some bearing on matters.
> And yet if we were
> to preserve *those* aspects of their work, much of the interesting studies
> done on medieval religion, for example, would not be possible
Not an area I am greatly (or particularly!) knowledgeable about, so I cannot comment
on any new studies. But in what way would the methods and results of the newer
studies differ from the older ones? That is, in what way do such earlier biases
stand out, that are, presumably, not apparent in modern studies? Have different
conclusions been reached, then?
> I see
> period categories as just as defensible or disposable an element of
> historiography--once they cease to advance knowledge, they should be
> redefined or retired.
There might be a case for minor such categories, but not mainstream ones. Otherwise,
should current courses in English universities called "The Renaissance" (etc), be
re-named and have their contents changed?
Renia
Lblanch001
>
>I have never heard of this phrase, as far as I recall. Generally, the
>fifteenth
>century is 1399-1485, and 1485-1558 is the Early Tudor Period.
Do you read much in this time period? I've heard, and read, the phrase "the
long fifteenth century" to refer from the deposition of Richard II to the
dissolution of the monasteries, most recently in a talk by A. J. Pollard at
Magdalen College.
A more conservative but still "long" fifteenth century is 1399-1509, as in
Chrimes, Ross and Griffiths (ed.), The Fifteenth Century, 1399-1509.
It's been my experience that most of the folks calling 1399-1485 the fifteenth
century are poaching, turf-building early modernists who are staking their
claim to Henry VII and licking their chops at the prospect of adding all the
Lancastrians and Yorkists to their territory.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Paul J Gans
>The Renaissance (that is, the generally accepted Renaissance, as opposed to any
>Carolingian or any other renaissance), refers (to quote Jebb) to the "the whole
>restricted sens the Renaissance means the revived study, in the new secular as
>contrasted with the old monkish spirit, of the literature of classical
>antiquity. This revival of learning, as it is also called, was itself a chief
>agent in the emancipation of the mind of man from the trammels of effete
>ideals of life. It may be said to have begun in Italy with Petrarch and
>Contantinople lectured on greek at the university of Florence, 1396, and
>afterwards taught in other Italian cities. henceforth classical studies were
>pursued by the new generation of humanists with growing enthusiasm, to which a
>further impetus was given when, on the capture of Constantinople by the Turks,
>1453, many Greek scholars sought asylum in Italy.
This sounds very much like the classical definition of the
renaissance. I've read similar things for years. BUT:
1) There was no "revival of learning", learning never stopped.
2) It is laughable to talk about the "trammels of effete dogmatism"
of the earlier period when that earlier period did not burn
heretics, witches, or undesireables in any significant number
comparted to what happened after the trammels were released.
3) Greek notions were creeping into the west far earlier than
1396. The 13th century is a far better date.
4) By the time Constantinople fell, it had already been dead for
over 250 years. It never really recovered from being sacked
in 1204. The atmosphere in Byzantium's last centuries was
rather ossified with little or no intellectual ferment.
The problem, to me, is that renaissance denotes a rebirth. It
*used* to be thought that the medieval period wa a dull drab
place compared to the glitter and brightness of Rome and Greece.
But of course the comparison is silly. Indeed, if one picks
a field such as art and tries objectively to find its rebirth,
the "rebirth" keeps receding further and further back into the
medieval period.
We today think highly of the renaissance because, no surpise here,
the tastes of the 15 and 1600s are closer to ours than are the
tastes of the 800's.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J Gans
>There seems to be a tendency to want to change the definition of certain nouns which
>apply to historical eras, sometimes citing paradigm shifts as the reason for doing
>so.
>Shall we also start a campaign to have the name of The Enlightenment changed? With
>hindsight, they weren't all that enlightened, were they? Age of Reason? Blah! Not
>reasoned at all, with hindsight. It will have to go. Romantic Movement. Rubbish -
>not very romantic, so it also deserves re-definition. I know. Let's just dump the
>terms British, or French, or German history (or what you will) on the grounds that
>these nations didn't always exist as such, and were not fully peopled by nationals.
>So, out go (so far) according to members of this newsgroup, from this and previous
>discussions:
>Dark Ages
>Medieval
>Feudal
>The Renaissance
>Have I missed any? Any more European historical terminologies you all want to get
>rid of while we're at it? Do you want to redefine our entire history from the
>American perspective? Should I attend an American university to re-learn my British
>and European History, because it is beginning to seem that British and perhaps
>European Universities don't have a clue about how to study their own history, or the
>nature of it.
>Don't misunderstand me. As more information comes to light, or as our analytical
>techniques become more sophisticated, discussion is bound to arise on the nature and
>time-lines of such historical eras, and the names traditionally association with
>them. But there is a difference between discussing these matters from within a
>historical perspective, and from a modern perspective, which is what I believe is
>happening here. This seems to be resulting in a call to dismiss the names and
>natures of these eras as irrelevant and old-fashioned, and, indeed, politically
>incorrect. You cannot change history, particularly someone else's, nor can you
>re-define it to suit modern criteria of your own choosing. You can debate its nature
>all you like, but The Renaissance is still called The Renaissance.
Renia, don't go overboard. As I think you recognize, a number
of those terms are LOADED with value judgements. Renaissance
is typical. If I were to use the term I'd have to be able to
say what was being "reborn" and I can't.
Dark ages is the same. The term was once applied to the major
part of the medieval period, except that it only reflected the
lack of knowlege of the folks who used it, not any real lack.
I don't think I have to say *anything* about "The Age of Reason"
or the "enlightenment".
Medieval has picked up bad connotations, but it is NOT an
inherently judgement loaded word. I see no problem in using
it at all.
Feudalism causes problems for totally different reasons. There
is no definition of feudalism that even 30% of medievalists will
agree to. So it is not a useful term.
This has NOTHING to do with political correctness. The periods
I study were not "dark" by any stretch of the imagination, so
why should I call them that?
Edward John Schoenfeld
>There seems to be a tendency to want to change the definition of certain
>nouns which
>apply to historical eras, sometimes citing paradigm shifts as the reason for doing
>so.
>
>Shall we also start a campaign to have the name of The Enlightenment changed? With
>hindsight, they weren't all that enlightened, were they? Age of Reason? Blah! Not
>reasoned at all, with hindsight. It will have to go. Romantic Movement. Rubbish -
>not very romantic, so it also deserves re-definition.
AFAIK such movements have been started WRT each of the periods you mention.
They will succeed (or fail) based on the quality of evidence that can be
adduced to support such change.
>I know. Let's just dump the
>terms British, or French, or German history (or what you will) on the grounds that
>these nations didn't always exist as such, and were not fully peopled by nationals.
There also have been serious changes in the conception of national
histories. For example, histories of Germany used to begin with Ariovistus
and Caesar (or at least Tacitus). Nowadays they generally begin with the
breakup of the Carolingian empire, when the political entity (East Francia)
that eventually developed into Germany began to exist. The result is a
history of Germany that is based on the actual political developments taking
place ca. 800-1000, rather than one inspired by notions of racial continuity
that no one writing in the year 800 acknowledged.
>
>So, out go (so far) according to members of this newsgroup, from this and previous
>discussions:
>
>Dark Ages
>Medieval
>Feudal
>The Renaissance
>
>Have I missed any? Any more European historical terminologies you all want to get
>rid of while we're at it? Do you want to redefine our entire history from the
>American perspective?
The perspective is hardly 'American.' Most of the work contributing to the
'redefinition' as you put it of Renaissance was done in Europe, as was most
of the work contributing to the move away from 'Feudal'. AFAIK use of
'medieval' is still a living term, some people don't use it as a matter of
taste, other still do. About the only term that we Yanks can really claim
to have (tried to ) kill is 'Dark Ages' and that was an issue only because a
previous generation of Yanks applied a term that was perfectly legitimate in
periodizing English history to Medieval history in general, where it was not
justified by any reasonable standard of evidence. Are we supposed to allow
the manifest errors of previous scholarship to go uncorrected for all time?
>Should I attend an American university to re-learn my British
>and European History, because it is beginning to seem that British and perhaps
>European Universities don't have a clue about how to study their own
>history, or the
>nature of it.
Since many British and European universities teach the 'newer' periods, no
-- check out a course at an English university if you can. Or you might
profitably read some books that use the newer analysis and see what they
really have to say. You can even restrict your reading to books written by
authors who are not Americans (whether of the United Statesian or Canadian
ilk). For Early Medieval Germany, I would recommend the work of Timothy
Reuter.
>
>Don't misunderstand me. As more information comes to light, or as our analytical
>techniques become more sophisticated, discussion is bound to arise on the
>nature and
>time-lines of such historical eras, and the names traditionally association with
>them. But there is a difference between discussing these matters from within a
>historical perspective, and from a modern perspective, which is what I believe is
>happening here.
The redefinition is taking place based on an increased knowledge of how
people who lived back then thought of their own times. To me that is far
more 'historical' than using categories developed in the 18th and 19th
centuries that are arbitrary definitions reflecting the scholarly interests
of the 18th and 19th centuries.
>This seems to be resulting in a call to dismiss the names and
>natures of these eras as irrelevant and old-fashioned, and, indeed, politically
>incorrect.
To my experience, political correctness has very little to do with the
process of re-evaluating historical periods.
>You cannot change history, particularly someone else's, nor can you
>re-define it to suit modern criteria of your own choosing. You can debate
>its nature
>all you like, but The Renaissance is still called The Renaissance.
>
And exactly what does that mean? You choose to link its beginnings to
Chrysologus' lectures in 1396. What do you then do with the terminology of
rebirth used by Petrarch? Do you invent a 'proto-renaissance' to explain it
away? If you look to definitions based on art and architecture, what do you
do with the beginnings of the use of perspective in art by Giotto or the
adoption of neo-classical motifs in architecture? If you include art and
architecture in your definition, what do you do with the development of
humanistic scholarship north of the Alps, which accompanied further
development of the Gothic architectural style that the Italians rejected?
Do we now need to create an 'Era of Humanism' in intellectual history as
distinguished from 'The Renaissance' in art and architecture?
What if you are looking at economic history? You quote Jebb in defining the
Renaissance as "the whole process of transition from the medieval to the
modern order?" Where does that transition begin WRT commerce and the
economy? With the rise of mercantile activity, now pushed back to the
1000's by the discovery of new evidence? Or do you bail out and go for
economic changes after the 14th century Black Death and demographic famines
(everybody's favorite 'turning point')? What about politics? Where does the
transition to 'modernity' begin or end there? The development of effective
monarchies in England and France during the 1200's? The collapse of
Imperial and Papal political authority that left the Italian city states in
charge (also the 1200's)? Or do you say that the prototypical modern
political organization is some form of democracy and extend 'the
Renaissance' (in Jebb's sense) to 1776 (or, since we are to avoid
'Americanization,' 1789)? What usefulness does the term 'Renaissance' have
there?
The point being that the traditional periodization, which you defend, is as
much a MODERN construct as any that can/may replace it, and is of limited
usefulness in many fields of historical inquiry. In fact (and this was the
point to my original posting) to the extent that 'The Renaissance' is
understood as a 'rebirth' of something that previously had existed, it can
actually be misleading, because many important developments grouped under
the heading 'Renaissance' are either continuities in development from the
'Middle Ages' or new departures that did not have much (if any) precedent in
Classical Antiquity. Recognizing that is part of acknowledging that the
facts of history, approached on their own terms, do not very often fit our
modern notions of how things work. Periodization should be based on the
what is found in the evidence, and we should always be ready to trash our
preconceived notions if they get in the way of understanding the evidence.
Ed
Renia Simmonds
> Renia Simmons writes:
Renia Simmonds <g>
> >I have never heard of this phrase, as far as I recall. Generally, the
> >fifteenth
> >century is 1399-1485, and 1485-1558 is the Early Tudor Period.
>
> Do you read much in this time period? I've heard, and read, the phrase "the
> long fifteenth century" to refer from the deposition of Richard II to the
> dissolution of the monasteries, most recently in a talk by A. J. Pollard at
> Magdalen College.
An honest answer has to be, not so much as others read. I have a *developing*
interest in Medieval History (might even do it for an MA next year), but my
"period" spans the 16th/17th centuries. I didn't say the phrase doesn't exist,
just that I hadn't heard of it. (I would have liked to have been at that talk!)
Renia
Renia Simmonds
Paul J Gans wrote:
<snip>
> 1) There was no "revival of learning", learning never stopped.
Q From the quote I used (which, I admit, I pinched from my 1923 Harmsworth's
Encyclopedia for easier definition):
Renaissance means the revived study, in the new secular as contrasted with the old
monkish spirit, UQ
No, of course, learning never stopped! But the style and type of learning changed.
Contemplative learning gave way to active learning, with the emphasis on classical
studies.
> 2) It is laughable to talk about the "trammels of effete dogmatism"
I expect it is. I hardly even know what it means! I failed to edit it out of my
post. But, it probably is a good example of the changed attitudes being discussed
here.
> of the earlier period when that earlier period did not burn
> heretics, witches, or undesireables in any significant number
> comparted to what happened after the trammels were released.
No. They did other ghastly things instead! But I don't necessarily think it's that
type of religious dogmatism being discussed in1923. Protestantism had not yet
developed by 1396, so there was only one faith in Western Europe at the time, and
few questioned its validity. The Renaissance played its part in the eventual
breakdown of Catholic dominance, and releasing minds, such as that of Copernicus (a
late example), from within the boundaries of the type of religious dogma which
dictated that God's hand must be in all things. Yet, an earlier post of mine, (in
the thread on Pardigm Shifts), I quote from "Guthrie's Geography" Fourth Edition, by
William Guthrie, Dilly, London, 1788: ((Astronomical Part by James Ferguson, FRS)),
where I comment on "the constant references to God's part in all this." If you like,
then, The Renaissance hadn't even finished at the height of The Englightenment!
> 3) Greek notions were creeping into the west far earlier than
> 1396. The 13th century is a far better date.
Yes, for Greek notions, but not necessarily for the heightened intellectual
environment which developed slightly later.
> 4) By the time Constantinople fell, it had already been dead for
> over 250 years. It never really recovered from being sacked
> in 1204. The atmosphere in Byzantium's last centuries was
> rather ossified with little or no intellectual ferment.
Maybe so, but the quote refers to the numbers of Greek scholars who sought refuge in
Italy in 1453. The point being that a large group would give impetus to any growing
movement, particularly in an environment which encouraged intellectual rigour,
unlike the intellectual stagnation of their homeland for the 250 years in their
homeland. Guthrie, in 1788, referred to The Renaissance as "the revival of
(classical) learning", aligning it with "modern times". "The revival of learning,
after the sack of Constantinople by the Turks, revived taste...."
> The problem, to me, is that renaissance denotes a rebirth. It
> *used* to be thought that the medieval period wa a dull drab
> place compared to the glitter and brightness of Rome and Greece.
Not really. This refers to the Dark Ages, which is why that era is so named.
However, I cede that a change has taken place, in pushing the time-frame of the Dark
Ages further back, to the era before the development of substantial primary sources.
Guthrie says in 1788, "in speaking of the dark ages, it would be unpardonable to
omit the mention of that produgy of learning, and natural philosophy, Roger
Bacon..." which is quite late.
> But of course the comparison is silly. Indeed, if one picks
> a field such as art and tries objectively to find its rebirth,
> the "rebirth" keeps receding further and further back into the
> medieval period.
>
> We today think highly of the renaissance because, no surpise here,
> the tastes of the 15 and 1600s are closer to ours than are the
> tastes of the 800's.
Only because we have "revived" our classical tastes, in lieu of the dearth of Celtic
material available from the 9th century.
As to my including "medieval" in my list of *banned* words, that was an error.
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Renia
Brian M. Scott
<PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> 1) There was no "revival of learning", learning never stopped.
>Q From the quote I used (which, I admit, I pinched from my 1923
>Harmsworth's Encyclopedia for easier definition): Renaissance means
>the revived study, in the new secular as contrasted with the old
>monkish spirit, UQ
>No, of course, learning never stopped! But the style and type of
>learning changed. Contemplative learning gave way to active
>learning, with the emphasis on classical studies.
The history of mathematics, at least, shows a good deal of active
learning in the 12th, 13th, and 14th c., starting with a spate of
translations: Arabic to Latin, Arabic to Spanish, Arabic to Hebrew,
Greek to Latin, and even combinations thereof.
[...]
>The Renaissance played its part in the eventual
>breakdown of Catholic dominance, and releasing minds, such as
>that of Copernicus (a late example), from within the boundaries of
>the type of religious dogma which dictated that God's hand must
>be in all things.
It's my understanding that it was Protestant theologians who initially
objected most vociferously to the Copernican system -- starting with
Osiander, who supervised the publication De revolutionibus but who
regarded its ideas as a useful fiction.
[...]
>> 3) Greek notions were creeping into the west far earlier than
>> 1396. The 13th century is a far better date.
>Yes, for Greek notions, but not necessarily for the heightened intellectual
>environment which developed slightly later.
What about the heightened intellectual environment that led to the
establishment of the universities of Bologna, Paris, Oxford,
Cambridge; to Leonardo of Pisa, Sacrobosco, Jordanus Nemorarius,
Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, and
Thomas Bradwardine ('Doctor profundus'); to the translations of
Adelard of Bath and the scholars of Seville in the 12th c. and to
William of Moerbeke's translation of Archimedes' chief works in the
13th c.?
[...]
>> The problem, to me, is that renaissance denotes a rebirth. It
>> *used* to be thought that the medieval period wa a dull drab
>> place compared to the glitter and brightness of Rome and Greece.
>Not really. This refers to the Dark Ages, which is why that era is so named.
'The term middle age (medium aevum) was first used in the late 15th
century by humanist scholars as a description of that period of
western European history between the collapse of Roman civilization in
the 5th century AD and the revival of civilized life and learning in
which the humanists believed themselves to be participating.'
<http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,108595+1+106072,00.html>
[...]
>> We today think highly of the renaissance because, no surpise here,
>> the tastes of the 15 and 1600s are closer to ours than are the
>> tastes of the 800's.
>Only because we have "revived" our classical tastes, in lieu of the
>dearth of Celtic material available from the 9th century.
??? Why 'Celtic'?
I am not convinced, by the way, that 'revival' of Classical tastes
accounts for ours being in general closer to those of the 16th and
17th c. than to those of the 9th c.
[...]
Brian M. Scott