Defining medieval
Angelo Tulumello
and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
function. I have seen another definition that has considerably more appeal.
It suggests that the term medieval is that period in which development
follows with reference to earlier classical thought. This definition applies
in Chinese Tang and Sung Dynasties and might be equally suitable to the
period in Europe following about 900AD to the Renaissance. Does anyone have
a issue with this definition? It seems better to me. I would appreciate
comment.
Thank you
Angelo Tulumello
Frank Martin
the Greeks and the Greeks the Egyptians et.al. etc.
Indeed the Hawaiians may therefore have had a medieval age in referencing
the east asians.
"Angelo Tulumello" <atu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com...
BernardZ
says...
> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
> function.
I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
medieval period?
Also is Muslim civilization part of it?
> I have seen another definition that has considerably more appeal.
> It suggests that the term medieval is that period in which development
> follows with reference to earlier classical thought. This definition applies
> in Chinese Tang and Sung Dynasties and might be equally suitable to the
> period in Europe following about 900AD to the Renaissance. Does anyone have
> a issue with this definition? It seems better to me. I would appreciate
> comment.
See Frank Martin comments
Although I think that there is something to what you say. As well let me
say that the Renaissance does not appear to be such a dramatic period
but rather a continuation of a process already happening.
And many of the places in medieval history like Poland, Russia and
Sweden never had the Roman period. And many place that have Roman rule
left the fold at different times eg England started their post Roman
early and Greece was still under Roman rule in 900 CE.
Paul J Gans
>In article <vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com>, atu...@charter.net
>says...
>> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
>> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
>> function.
>I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
>include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
>medieval period?
The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
years you give are commonly used.
For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
essentially England and France with bits of other countries
sneaking in from time to time.
Today the term can be used world-wide.
>Also is Muslim civilization part of it?
Today, yes.
>> I have seen another definition that has considerably more appeal.
>> It suggests that the term medieval is that period in which development
>> follows with reference to earlier classical thought. This definition applies
>> in Chinese Tang and Sung Dynasties and might be equally suitable to the
>> period in Europe following about 900AD to the Renaissance. Does anyone have
>> a issue with this definition? It seems better to me. I would appreciate
>> comment.
>See Frank Martin comments
>Although I think that there is something to what you say. As well let me
>say that the Renaissance does not appear to be such a dramatic period
>but rather a continuation of a process already happening.
>And many of the places in medieval history like Poland, Russia and
>Sweden never had the Roman period. And many place that have Roman rule
>left the fold at different times eg England started their post Roman
>early and Greece was still under Roman rule in 900 CE.
I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
by a process. That would mean that period X started at
different times in different places and may not yet have
started in other places.
It would be useful if one was talking about a process however.
For example a study of capitalism could well deal with different
time periods in different regions.
Just my two cents.
---- Paul J. Gans
Renia
The term medieval means middle age (from Latin medius - middle and
aev(um) - an age). It was coined to denote one age between other ages,
and usually refers to the period in Europe between the Dark Ages and
the Renaissance. That definition is changing, whereby the "old"
medieval age is now often known as the High Middle Ages and the Dark
Ages is know as the Low Middle Ages. The Dark Ages refers to the
period in Europe between the end of Roman Civilisation and about 1000
AD. The Dark in Dark Ages, does not refer to an ugly black history,
but a darkness in the number of sources available, that is, the Age
had few written sources from which to examine the history. But by
archaeology and other means, the history of the Dark Ages is opening
up.
In the examples you give, those eras have their own names, such as
Sung Dynasty or Tang Dynasty.
Renia
Frank Martin
sway, from Constantine the Great to the Reformation.
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a387cf87.03073...@posting.google.com...
BernardZ
> BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
> >In article <vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com>, atu...@charter.net
> >says...
> >> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
> >> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
> >> function.
>
> >I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
> >include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
> >medieval period?
>
> The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
> years you give are commonly used.
>
> For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
> essentially England and France with bits of other countries
> sneaking in from time to time.
Most of it still is from what I can see.
>
> Today the term can be used world-wide.
I noticed. However this breakdown by a period from 500 to 1500 only
makes sense in Western Europe. What would be the significance to an Arab
or a Chinese for these dates? It does not make their history more
meaningful. Sort of defeats the whole concept of breaking up history
into meaningful divisions.
<snip>
> I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
> by a process. That would mean that period X started at
> different times in different places and may not yet have
> started in other places.
>
Agreed. I would say that a historical period by definition is a date
period.
BernardZ
says...
> Another definition might be that period in which the Catholic Church held
> sway, from Constantine the Great to the Reformation.
I do like hat definition and it makes a lot of sense except that many
regions that we study in medieval history were not under the Catholic
church until long after 500 CE and some like Russia never.
Renia
> BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
> >In article <vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com>, atu...@charter.net
> >says...
> >> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
> >> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
> >> function.
>
> >I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
> >include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
> >medieval period?
>
> The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
> years you give are commonly used.
>
> For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
> essentially England and France with bits of other countries
> sneaking in from time to time.
>
> Today the term can be used world-wide.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You may as well say that Mayan culture
applies to England at the same time as well. It's like saying that
just because apples and oranges are both fruits, both should be called
apples. It's moving the goalposts and displaying a lack of
understanding of the histories and cultures of the various times and
periods.
> >Also is Muslim civilization part of it?
>
> Today, yes.
I disagree. You can't change it because you want to or because it's
arty-farty. That's moving the goalposts. Medieval history does not
apply to anywhere in the world at any time between certain periods. It
only applies when one culture impinges upon another, such as during
the Crusades.
Renia
Renia
> Another definition might be that period in which the Catholic Church held
> sway, from Constantine the Great to the Reformation.
Except that the Greek Orthodox church was strong in large chunks of
Eastern Europe, and was not under the mantle of the Pope or the
Catholic Church.
Renia
Renia
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bga68q$3ot$2...@reader1.panix.com>...
> BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
> >In article <vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com>, atu...@charter.net
> >says...
> >> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
> >> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
> >> function.
>
> >I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
> >include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
> >medieval period?
>
> The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
> years you give are commonly used.
>
> For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
> essentially England and France with bits of other countries
> sneaking in from time to time.
>
> Today the term can be used world-wide.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You may as well say that Mayan culture
applies to England at the same time as well. It's like saying that
just because apples and oranges are both fruits, both should be called
apples. It's moving the goalposts and displaying a lack of
understanding of the histories and cultures of the various times and
periods.
> >Also is Muslim civilization part of it?
>
> Today, yes.
I disagree. You can't change it because you want to or because it's
arty-farty. That's moving the goalposts. Medieval history does not
apply to anywhere in the world at any time between certain periods. It
only applies *in other cultures* when one culture impinges upon
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bga68q$3ot$2...@reader1.panix.com>...
>> BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
[...]
>> >For example what are the borders of the
>> >medieval period?
>> The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
>> years you give are commonly used.
>> For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
>> essentially England and France with bits of other countries
>> sneaking in from time to time.
>> Today the term can be used world-wide.
>That makes no sense whatsoever. You may as well say that Mayan culture
>applies to England at the same time as well. It's like saying that
>just because apples and oranges are both fruits, both should be called
>apples. It's moving the goalposts and displaying a lack of
>understanding of the histories and cultures of the various times and
>periods.
Whether you like it or not, historians *have* extended the use of
the term well beyond Europe. If you do a little searching, you
will easily find scholarly books whose titles refer to medieval
Japan, medieval China, or medieval Korea. Cambridge Univ. Press
recently published _Medieval Africa, 1250-1800_, and I had no
trouble finding academic references to medieval India. I don't
think that I've seen it applied to New World societies, so 'can
be used world-wide' may be a slight exaggeration of current
practice, but basically Paul's right. I have no doubt that there
are professional historians who regret the fact as much as you
do, but I'd bet that the extended meaning is a fait accompli; it
certainly is in respect of Japan.
[...]
Brian
Dick Wisan
>
>BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
>>
>>atu...@charter.net says...
>>>
>>> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
>>> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
>>> function.
>
>>I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
>>include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
>>medieval period?
>
>The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
>years you give are commonly used.
>
>For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
>essentially England and France with bits of other countries
>sneaking in from time to time.
>
>by a process. That would mean that period X started at
>different times in different places and may not yet have
>started in other places.
>
>It would be useful if one was talking about a process however.
>For example a study of capitalism could well deal with different
>time periods in different regions.
But sometimes periods are identified with processes, in your sense.
I should say the "Renaissance" is a process, such that it makes
sense to say that it came late to England and northern Europe.
The quick-and-dirty way to periodize is by numbers (500-1500 AD^H^HCE).
But why pick one rather than another pair of numbers? There must be
something that holds the period together. It needn't be a single
element common-and-unique to the period, but at least some kind of
"family resemblance" in Wittgenstein's sense.
Does it make sense to apply a period name cross cultures? It surely
gives a certain grasp when you say that say Japan of the Shogunate
was a medieval society. It's not more than an analogy, and there
are lots of differences between the European and the Japanese "middle
ages", but it's not nonesense.
>Just my two cents.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
>
>
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
erilar
<fr...@general.com.au> wrote:
> Another definition might be that period in which the Catholic Church held
> sway, from Constantine the Great to the Reformation.
Well, there was a certain darkness to that...
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Paul J Gans
>In article <bga68q$3ot$2...@reader1.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
>> BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
>> >In article <vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com>, atu...@charter.net
>> >says...
>> >> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between 500
>> >> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
>> >> function.
>>
>> >I would really like an answer to this question too although I would
>> >include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
>> >medieval period?
>>
>> The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
>> years you give are commonly used.
>>
>> For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
>> essentially England and France with bits of other countries
>> sneaking in from time to time.
>Most of it still is from what I can see.
>>
>> Today the term can be used world-wide.
>I noticed. However this breakdown by a period from 500 to 1500 only
>makes sense in Western Europe. What would be the significance to an Arab
>or a Chinese for these dates? It does not make their history more
>meaningful. Sort of defeats the whole concept of breaking up history
>into meaningful divisions.
NO. You missed your own point. Originally the term
"Middle Ages" (in English) applied mainly to Western
Europe.
Today we extend the geographic extent to (most of) the
world. We have not changed the times or it would produce
massive confusion in medieval studies.
There is no particular significance to an Arab or a
Chinese in those dates. They were not chosen to
*be* significant to an Arab or a Chinese. Their
history is their history and can be (and is) studied
on its own terms.
><snip>
>> I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
>> by a process. That would mean that period X started at
>> different times in different places and may not yet have
>> started in other places.
>>
>Agreed. I would say that a historical period by definition is a date
>period.
Exactly. In the west the rough divisions are:
1500 BC - 500 BC are "biblical" or "pre-classical" or whatever.
500 BC - 500 AD are the classical period.
500 AD - 1500 AD are the medieval period
1500 AD - 2500 AD are the modern period.
Isn't that easy? 1000 years to a period and nice round
dates too!
Of course, you are free to chose your own dates. Many
historians have.
--- Paul J. Gans
Frank Martin
canal diggers on Mars, Australian aborigines, Chinese and Japanese were all
merely contemporaneous.
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a387cf87.03073...@posting.google.com...
Frank Martin
Deafening!!
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-9964...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
Paul J Gans
The traditional dates are based on major culutural changes.
The first, 500 AD corresponds roughly to the end of the
Roman Empire, while hte second, 1500 AD marks the European
discovery of the rest of the world.
Both are major events that had a lasting influence on Europe.
>Does it make sense to apply a period name cross cultures? It surely
>gives a certain grasp when you say that say Japan of the Shogunate
>was a medieval society. It's not more than an analogy, and there
>are lots of differences between the European and the Japanese "middle
>ages", but it's not nonesense.
Does it make sense to apply "medieval" to other cultures?
Historically, it was NOT so applied. But in the last
20 years or so there has been an "equalitarian" movement
to apply it across the board. "Why discriminate against
India" some say.
Anyway, the term is now expanded.
I'm simply reporting what I see happening. It is curious
that folks ask *me* to defend it. I didn't do it folks,
I really didn't.
If anyone wants my opinion it is that "Middle Ages" should
be centered on western Europe but extended to cover the
other cultures that impinged on western Europe such as
Byzantium, the Slavic regions, and the Islamic regions.
In the past these were left out, so cross-cultural influences
were often missed or downplayed.
That's *my* opinion, but not that of the field right now,
at least as I see it.
--- Paul J. Gans
Drew Nicholson
> But isn't 'Medieval' considered European history? The Mayans, Russians,
> canal diggers on Mars, Australian aborigines, Chinese and Japanese were
all
> merely contemporaneous.
>
I think that the reason why it's been applied world-wide is because of the
ascendancy of Western Europe and the US (which is of the same tradition).
"We" write the history books, so history is put into "our" perspectives. It
may not be fair, but...
Angelo Tulumello
The point of a functional definition is based on the view that the course of
history is a process in the progress of civilization. That is that some
communities require a written language followed by their use of that
language for whatever improves their condition. This follows a further
elaboration where that language is embedded in systems of communication,
(unsensored debate, printing, radio, TV) ultimately leading to enlightened
contribution by the great majority of the population: a condition I believe
to exist in the West.
In this system it would be appropriate to see the consequences of certain
behavior in one society to protect participants in their evolutionary
process. It would appear that the Moslem world has experienced some
deprivation in their formation, that deprives them of access to their own
resources. If we had some insight into this from our experience in 10th
century Europe we might be better equipped to cope in modern Iraq.
Angelo Tulumello
"Frank Martin" <fr...@general.com.au> wrote in message
news:bgae0j$27o9$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Alex
> Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
It looks like some "folks" are thoroughly confused and you are too
modest to bring things into a proper prespective. I simply have to
step in.
>
> The traditional dates are based on major culutural changes.
Indeed. The 1st such change was your birth and the 2nd one
was when you reached your Middle Age (period between your
conception and birth was, understandably, called the Dark Ages).
>
> Both are major events that had a lasting influence on Europe.
>
You are too modest: they had a lasting influence all over the world.
> It is curious
> that folks ask *me* to defend it.
Of course, everybody knows your modesty and, anyway, why would you have
to "defend" a natural process of your aging?
> I didn't do it folks,
You mean you did not do ... er ... you know ... the thing after which
the Dark Ages started?
> I really didn't.
Surely, you did not. Unless, as a certain Diety, you have the multiple
personalities and participated in your own conception.
>
> If anyone wants my opinion
Now, why anyone may want THIS?
:-)
Renia
> that folks ask *me* to defend it. I didn't do it folks,
> I really didn't.
No one says you did. No one is asking you to defend it. You are no
more a professional medieval historian than the rest of us, so we
don't actually expect you to be the authority on this. You are a
participant in this discussion, just like the rest of us, not the
tutor.
> If anyone wants my opinion it is that "Middle Ages" should
> be centered on western Europe but extended to cover the
> other cultures that impinged on western Europe such as
> Byzantium, the Slavic regions, and the Islamic regions.
My thoughts exactly. (Nice to know we don't disagree on everything
medieval!) And I don't think current fashion changes that.
> In the past these were left out, so cross-cultural influences
> were often missed or downplayed.
I don't know about "left out", as such. It depends on the particular
historian's perspective.
Renia
Dick Wisan
But, we _do_ say that. The Renaissance began in Italy, and only
later came to the north.
>>>
>
>>Agreed. I would say that a historical period by definition is a date
>>period.
Any period is a time between two end-points, and any pair of end-points
defines a period. A _historical_ period, however, must have some
character of historical interest which makes it worth distinguishing.
>Exactly. In the west the rough divisions are:
>
>1500 BC - 500 BC are "biblical" or "pre-classical" or whatever.
> 500 BC - 500 AD are the classical period.
> 500 AD - 1500 AD are the medieval period
>1500 AD - 2500 AD are the modern period.
>
>Isn't that easy? 1000 years to a period and nice round
>dates too!
If it's really as purely numerological as that, why break them in
the middle of millennia? We already identify decades and centuries
as periods, because when you look at them they can be expanded or
compressed to fit --the "sixties" really ran from about 1964 to
maybe 1975. So, it's named for a decade, but it's named because
that period does have a special character -in US, of course, but
also in Europe, and, might one want to say, in south-east Asia?"
>
>Of course, you are free to chose your own dates. Many
>historians have.
>
> --- Paul J. Gans
Because they are merely time markers, nobody objects to applying
decades or centuries any place in the world, and it is sometimes
worthwhile comparing different regions in the same period. ("We
were writing poetry and philosophy while your ancestors were...
[something crude or evil]"). And, nobody argues when they began
and ended.
Named historical periods are supposed to indicate character or
process. That's why it's sometims worth arguing when they began
and ended. "The Renaissance of the 12th Century" was a meaningful
and exciting title, because it's obviously claiming a similarity
between period and a part of another. ["The X of Y" is a curious
phrase, though. Saint-Saens was once called "The Beethoven of
France", but Bethoven was never called 'The Saing-Saens of Germany."]
Obviously, no one thinks that a character or process that marks a
period in Europe must have also of occurred everywhere else at the
same time. So, "medieval" was defined in Europe {AIUI, because
the ancients were brilliant, and we are getting bright, too, but
in between people were superstitious and stupid). But since it's
supposed to have a character, we can shed light (and also murk) on
something when we find "medieval" or "renaissance" periods in
other places at other times.
Paul J Gans
But we talk about the Renaissance as a rediscovery, not as
a historical period. And there area many who speak of the
renaissance of the 12th century. It started in the north.
>>>>
>>
>>>Agreed. I would say that a historical period by definition is a date
>>>period.
>Any period is a time between two end-points, and any pair of end-points
>defines a period. A _historical_ period, however, must have some
>character of historical interest which makes it worth distinguishing.
Sure.
>>Exactly. In the west the rough divisions are:
>>
>>1500 BC - 500 BC are "biblical" or "pre-classical" or whatever.
>> 500 BC - 500 AD are the classical period.
>> 500 AD - 1500 AD are the medieval period
>>1500 AD - 2500 AD are the modern period.
>>
>>Isn't that easy? 1000 years to a period and nice round
>>dates too!
>If it's really as purely numerological as that, why break them in
>the middle of millennia? We already identify decades and centuries
>as periods, because when you look at them they can be expanded or
>compressed to fit --the "sixties" really ran from about 1964 to
>maybe 1975. So, it's named for a decade, but it's named because
>that period does have a special character -in US, of course, but
>also in Europe, and, might one want to say, in south-east Asia?"
Because we've don that. 500 BC marks roughly the rise of
classical Greece and thus, to many, the start of western
culture. 500 AD marks the end of Rome and 1500 AD marks
the explosion of Europe onto the rest of the world.
>>
>>Of course, you are free to chose your own dates. Many
>>historians have.
>>
>> --- Paul J. Gans
>Because they are merely time markers, nobody objects to applying
>decades or centuries any place in the world, and it is sometimes
>worthwhile comparing different regions in the same period. ("We
>were writing poetry and philosophy while your ancestors were...
>[something crude or evil]"). And, nobody argues when they began
>and ended.
>Named historical periods are supposed to indicate character or
>process. That's why it's sometims worth arguing when they began
>and ended. "The Renaissance of the 12th Century" was a meaningful
>and exciting title, because it's obviously claiming a similarity
>between period and a part of another. ["The X of Y" is a curious
>phrase, though. Saint-Saens was once called "The Beethoven of
>France", but Bethoven was never called 'The Saing-Saens of Germany."]
>Obviously, no one thinks that a character or process that marks a
>period in Europe must have also of occurred everywhere else at the
>same time. So, "medieval" was defined in Europe {AIUI, because
>the ancients were brilliant, and we are getting bright, too, but
>in between people were superstitious and stupid). But since it's
>supposed to have a character, we can shed light (and also murk) on
>something when we find "medieval" or "renaissance" periods in
>other places at other times.
Sure. But the name has stuck, unlike "dark ages" which
is passing out of use.
Look at it this way: *we* can't change the usage. It is
too deeply embedded.
---- Paul J. Gans
John A Geck
> >>>> I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
> >>>> by a process. That would mean that period X started at
> >>>> different times in different places and may not yet have
> >>>> started in other places.
>
> >But, we _do_ say that. The Renaissance began in Italy, and only
> >later came to the north.
>
> But we talk about the Renaissance as a rediscovery, not as
> a historical period. And there area many who speak of the
> renaissance of the 12th century. It started in the north.
>
People certainly do use the term to talk about a period of time! That's
why there's "renaissance historians," "renaissance art," and "renaissance
studies." Further, I'm certain that even C.H. Haskins would qualify the
claim that the 12th Century Renaissance began in the north. After all, it
was in the more southern locales of western Europe that the classical
knowledge was rediscovered (e.g. Al-Andalus).
Finally, why did the term 12th century Renaissance come to be used,
except for the fact that the term already existed to discribe the later,
Italian-born period of time. Haskins used the term to talk about a cultural,
and thus historical phenomenon that took place during a set period of time,
not simply in the sense of a rediscovery.
[And when you say "_It_ started in the north," you mean specifically the
12th century renaissance, not a hybrid 12th-16th century prolonged period of
rediscovery, right? If the latter, that's a difficult claim to defend.]
John
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bgeics$gpq$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>> >>>> I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
>> >>>> by a process. That would mean that period X started at
>> >>>> different times in different places and may not yet have
>> >>>> started in other places.
>>
>> >But, we _do_ say that. The Renaissance began in Italy, and only
>> >later came to the north.
>>
>> But we talk about the Renaissance as a rediscovery, not as
>> a historical period. And there area many who speak of the
>> renaissance of the 12th century. It started in the north.
>>
> People certainly do use the term to talk about a period of time! That's
>why there's "renaissance historians," "renaissance art," and "renaissance
>studies."
Sure, but as an earlier poster noted, the "renaissance" refers
to different time periods in different countries.
>Further, I'm certain that even C.H. Haskins would qualify the
>claim that the 12th Century Renaissance began in the north. After all, it
>was in the more southern locales of western Europe that the classical
>knowledge was rediscovered (e.g. Al-Andalus).
There was more to it than the "rediscovery" of classical
knowlege.
> Finally, why did the term 12th century Renaissance come to be used,
>except for the fact that the term already existed to discribe the later,
>Italian-born period of time. Haskins used the term to talk about a cultural,
>and thus historical phenomenon that took place during a set period of time,
>not simply in the sense of a rediscovery.
You had it right when you said "cultural".
> [And when you say "_It_ started in the north," you mean specifically the
>12th century renaissance, not a hybrid 12th-16th century prolonged period of
>rediscovery, right? If the latter, that's a difficult claim to defend.]
Right. The 12th Century Renaissance died.
--- Paul J. Gans
Bernardzz
says...
Partly but I would go further. Although there is much truth in this. the
problem is that an historian to understand cannot live in the box.
Say a medieval French historian will find that he must know some German
history, a German historian, same period, needs to know something of
Poland and so we go on. Similarly if the historian of that period is
interested in human culture eg science he would need to study Muslim
civilisation similarly so would a historian interested in Jewish
studies.
John A Geck
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:bgeics$gpq$4...@reader1.panix.com...
> >> >>>> I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
> >> >>>> by a process. That would mean that period X started at
> >> >>>> different times in different places and may not yet have
> >> >>>> started in other places.
> >>
> >> >But, we _do_ say that. The Renaissance began in Italy, and only
> >> >later came to the north.
> >>
> >> But we talk about the Renaissance as a rediscovery, not as
> >> a historical period. And there area many who speak of the
> >> renaissance of the 12th century. It started in the north.
> >>
>
> > People certainly do use the term to talk about a period of time!
That's
> >why there's "renaissance historians," "renaissance art," and "renaissance
> >studies."
>
> Sure, but as an earlier poster noted, the "renaissance" refers
> to different time periods in different countries.
True, but if the term Renaissance, not qualified by a "12th century,"
refers to a series of overlapping developments in a region connected rather
tightly by language, religion, culture, and historical development?
> >Further, I'm certain that even C.H. Haskins would qualify the
> >claim that the 12th Century Renaissance began in the north. After all, it
> >was in the more southern locales of western Europe that the classical
> >knowledge was rediscovered (e.g. Al-Andalus).
>
> There was more to it than the "rediscovery" of classical
> knowlege.
You're the one who said "But we talk about the Renaissance as a
rediscovery, not as a historical period." By saying this you support the
whole point that the Renaissance is something larger than a series of
rediscoveries, and thus a term that can be applied to a period of change.
> > Finally, why did the term 12th century Renaissance come to be
used,
> >except for the fact that the term already existed to discribe the later,
> >Italian-born period of time. Haskins used the term to talk about a
cultural,
> >and thus historical phenomenon that took place during a set period of
time,
> >not simply in the sense of a rediscovery.
>
> You had it right when you said "cultural".
Exactly; any sort of cultural development is naturally tied into a
period of time. It doesn't come and go; rather, it starts with some distinct
important events (i.e. Fall of Rome, when talking about Middle Ages), and
then the period in which these changes are assimilated goes on, until there
are some other big changes. That's why Haskins could say the "12th Century
Renaissance," and not "the rediscovery that happened at some point in the
12th century."
Of course the terms are messy, but nearly everybody gets some sense of
what you mean when you use them. Certainly Renaissance historians can go
over the lines a bit, and claim that everyone from Da Vinci to Newton is
part of "their" period. This indicates that the period themselves overlap-
after all, roughly contemporaneous to Da Vinci, we have Thomas Malory.
The point is not to take the endpoints of the line too seriously. The
Fall of Rome happened about 500, but Late Classical holdovers cn be found;
likewise, when did Rome fall for Britain? How important was it to them, 500
CE?
John
Francesco Fumarola
news:vie63j5...@corp.supernews.com...
> We generally define medieval; as events occurring in the period between
500
> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
appeal.
> It suggests that the term medieval is that period in which development
> follows with reference to earlier classical thought. This definition
applies
> in Chinese Tang and Sung Dynasties
>
I do not understand your point. May I ask you were you found this definition
of medieval?
In any case, it is not suited for Tang dinasty. I find on the contrary that
Tang dinasty represented a big step in Chinese history, because its culture
devolopped almost indipendently from the past.
Francesco Fumarola
Dick Wisan
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
>>
>>Paul J Gans ga...@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>BernardZ <Bern...@removemail.com takeout remove> wrote:
>>>>
>
>Because we've don[e] that. 500 BC marks roughly the rise of
>classical Greece and thus, to many, the start of western
>culture. 500 AD marks the end of Rome and 1500 AD marks
>the explosion of Europe onto the rest of the world.
Then they _aren't_ merely numerical conveniences, like "decade" or
"Century". It's interesting that you're marking off a period from
the rise of Greece to the end of Rome. No marker between? Of
course there are periods within periods. Greek - Hellenistic -
Roman, and these can be cut finer, too. But it makes _sense_ to
run a period 500 BC - 500 AD because the differences between Greek-
Hellenistic-Roman less than the differences between Ancient-Medieval-
Modern, and arguments that this or that didn't begin until... are
not stipulations.
>>>Of course, you are free to chose your own dates. Many
>>>historians have.
But they have to offer reasons. When the French historian whose
name escapes my mind (it will return as soon as I send this missive
off) argued that the ancient world did not end until somewhere
around 800, he was not talking about convenient or elegant numbers.
He was claiming that trade patterns were more important than who
ruled Rome in characterizing the nature of European society.
Even the decade and the century which, taken literally are as purely
numerical as the meter and the furlong, get turned into historical
eras and develop debatable end-points. I like to make a joke that
the centuries have been running late, recently. The 19th didn't
begin until 1814, and the 20th began in 1914, and I look forward
with trepidation to whatever will occur in 2014 to bring in the 21st.
But I'm not _entirely_ joking, and I think you all understand what I
mean.
>
>Look at it this way: *we* can't change the usage. It is
>too deeply embedded.
This kind of usage does change, though not by fiat and not quickly.
When you say something like, "but, recently the term has been applied
to..." you're pointing out how it works.
Angelo Tulumello
You will find this definition In the second paragraph of Chapter 3 of a book
entitled "This Culture of Ours": Intellectual Transitions in Tang and Sung
China by Peter K Bols, Stanford University Press, Stanford California 1992.
I discovered the reference and found the Introduction to the text very
difficult reading. The rest of the book is quite good. It appears that he
wrote the Introduction at some time removed from his preparation of the rest
of the text.
Best Wishes in your studies
Angelo Tulumello
"Francesco Fumarola" <nos...@nospam.it> wrote in message
news:axTWa.16894$cl3.5...@news2.tin.it...
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bgfao0$odl$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bgeics$gpq$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>> >> >>>> I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
>> >> >>>> by a process. That would mean that period X started at
>> >> >>>> different times in different places and may not yet have
>> >> >>>> started in other places.
>> >>
>> >> >But, we _do_ say that. The Renaissance began in Italy, and only
>> >> >later came to the north.
>> >>
>> >> But we talk about the Renaissance as a rediscovery, not as
>> >> a historical period. And there area many who speak of the
>> >> renaissance of the 12th century. It started in the north.
>> >>
>>
>> > People certainly do use the term to talk about a period of time!
>That's
>> >why there's "renaissance historians," "renaissance art," and "renaissance
>> >studies."
>>
>> Sure, but as an earlier poster noted, the "renaissance" refers
>> to different time periods in different countries.
> True, but if the term Renaissance, not qualified by a "12th century,"
>refers to a series of overlapping developments in a region connected rather
>tightly by language, religion, culture, and historical development?
Then it seems to me that you are using the term to describe
a process and not a set period of years.
Nothing wrong with that -- after all, there is no law covering
this sort of thing.
>> >Further, I'm certain that even C.H. Haskins would qualify the
>> >claim that the 12th Century Renaissance began in the north. After all, it
>> >was in the more southern locales of western Europe that the classical
>> >knowledge was rediscovered (e.g. Al-Andalus).
>>
>> There was more to it than the "rediscovery" of classical
>> knowlege.
> You're the one who said "But we talk about the Renaissance as a
>rediscovery, not as a historical period." By saying this you support the
>whole point that the Renaissance is something larger than a series of
>rediscoveries, and thus a term that can be applied to a period of change.
No. I take the view you took above. The term applies to a
process.
In fact different people use the term "renaissance" differently.
We've just got to live with it.
>> > Finally, why did the term 12th century Renaissance come to be
>used,
>> >except for the fact that the term already existed to discribe the later,
>> >Italian-born period of time. Haskins used the term to talk about a
>cultural,
>> >and thus historical phenomenon that took place during a set period of
>time,
>> >not simply in the sense of a rediscovery.
>>
>> You had it right when you said "cultural".
> Exactly; any sort of cultural development is naturally tied into a
>period of time. It doesn't come and go; rather, it starts with some distinct
>important events (i.e. Fall of Rome, when talking about Middle Ages), and
>then the period in which these changes are assimilated goes on, until there
>are some other big changes. That's why Haskins could say the "12th Century
>Renaissance," and not "the rediscovery that happened at some point in the
>12th century."
I don't agree. What you wrote is true IF applied to one cultural
area. It isn't true if you attempt to apply it to several. For
example serfdom came to different nations at very different times.
And it disappeared at different times. Of course, "serfdom" isn't
well-defined, but even in a broad sense one can see my point.
Another example: We could speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". That
clearly started at different times in different places, so it
cannot be used as a general historical period. It *can* be used
in specific places and sometimes is.
> Of course the terms are messy, but nearly everybody gets some sense of
>what you mean when you use them. Certainly Renaissance historians can go
>over the lines a bit, and claim that everyone from Da Vinci to Newton is
>part of "their" period. This indicates that the period themselves overlap-
>after all, roughly contemporaneous to Da Vinci, we have Thomas Malory.
Sure. But I have a thing about the term "renaissance" just as
I do with the term "enlightenment". I prefer "early modern".
> The point is not to take the endpoints of the line too seriously. The
>Fall of Rome happened about 500, but Late Classical holdovers cn be found;
>likewise, when did Rome fall for Britain? How important was it to them, 500
>CE?
Of course. The advantage of a set time is that everyone knows
what you are talking about. You can present out-of-period things
with caveats exactly as you do above.
Indeed, this sort of thing happens all the time.
---- Paul J. Gans
John A Geck
> Of course. The advantage of a set time is that everyone knows
> what you are talking about. You can present out-of-period things
> with caveats exactly as you do above.
>
> Indeed, this sort of thing happens all the time.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
In all honesty, I haven't seen much difficulty arise because people use
the terms "medieval" and "renaissance." Typically they only do come up when
people are talking within a single cultural context, and thus the historical
period can be easily defined. As I had said before, I will say again in
response to your comment on serfdom- don't cultural neigbors, geographically
speaking, find overlap in thei use of serfdom? Sure, Russia was a hold-out,
but still...
Basically, the terms are used within particular contexts, and I've not
personally seen any serious confusion come out of their use. Has anyone?
Everyone that can qualifiedly discourse on Feudal Japan, or Medieval Japan,
uses it, as far as I've seen, only when making cultural comparisons. This of
course removes it from a historical period.
Just out of curiosity, why do you prefer "early modern" to
"renaissance?" One might be loaded, but the other is doomed to obsolesence.
Also, doesn't the term modern contain a certain connotative value claim?
Just a thought :)
John
Renia
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > Exactly; any sort of cultural development is naturally tied into a
> >period of time. It doesn't come and go; rather, it starts with some distinct
> >important events (i.e. Fall of Rome, when talking about Middle Ages), and
> >then the period in which these changes are assimilated goes on, until there
> >are some other big changes. That's why Haskins could say the "12th Century
> >Renaissance," and not "the rediscovery that happened at some point in the
> >12th century."
>
> I don't agree. What you wrote is true IF applied to one cultural
> area. It isn't true if you attempt to apply it to several. For
> example serfdom came to different nations at very different times.
> And it disappeared at different times. Of course, "serfdom" isn't
> well-defined, but even in a broad sense one can see my point.
But "serfdom" isn't the term used for a specific historical period. It
is a term in its own right, which is studied in its own right, and is
applied to different places at different times. So one can't see your
point.
It seems to me that you have come across these names for historical
periods and tried to read up on them, but don't actually understand
their significance. You are by training, a scientist, and your
specialisation within medieval history, is technology, or science. You
seem to see history as a science, rather than as one of the
humanities. This illustrates the difference in training between a
studient of the humanties and a student of science.
You want cultural movements to begin and end in specific places within
specific rules. But they don't. They develop slowly and spread, so it
can rarely be said when such an age began or when it ended. Indeed,
they probably never end, but develop into something else. That is the
study of history. Change over time.
> Another example: We could speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". That
> clearly started at different times in different places, so it
> cannot be used as a general historical period. It *can* be used
> in specific places and sometimes is.
But we don't speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". Presumably you are
implying that the names given to eras are random, so any old name
could be given to any old era, but wouldn't necessarily define it.
Your argument would hold some merit, if that was the case. There is
something to be said for new scholars and journalists inventing names
for modern eras (The Sixties, Inter-war), but even these are eras
within eras.
Most names of eras aren't precise descriptions of exact times and
exact social customs, and were never intended to be. They act as
compartments in huge periods in time which are easily recognisable to
the layman. Scholars, however, know that there are overlaps between
one era and another, and differences between one place and another.
> > Of course the terms are messy, but nearly everybody gets some sense of
> >what you mean when you use them. Certainly Renaissance historians can go
> >over the lines a bit, and claim that everyone from Da Vinci to Newton is
> >part of "their" period. This indicates that the period themselves overlap-
> >after all, roughly contemporaneous to Da Vinci, we have Thomas Malory.
>
> Sure. But I have a thing about the term "renaissance" just as
> I do with the term "enlightenment". I prefer "early modern".
What is wrong with the term "The Enlightenment" as an artistic and
philosophical movement within the 18th Century? It's a term which
encompasses themes, not exact actions. The growth of science and
diminishing influence of the Church in Europe (and America) allowed
philosophical minds to discard old taboos and superstitions and become
enlightened in their awareness of individual uniqueness. It gives
definition to a period in which a change in human thinking took place,
but no one claims that it began or ended at an exact time, or that it
took place in every town and village.
The Renaissance is an earlier case in point, in which a change in
human thinking occurred. It is a broad term, which Jebb defined as
"the whole process of transition in Europe from the medieval to the
modern order". So it is not the same thing as early modern. The term
itself means "rebirth", and that refers to the revival of learning
which was an agent in the emancipation of the mind. It has been
generally accepted to have begun with Petrarch and Boccaccio but the
real movement dates from when Manual Chrysoloras of Constantinople
lectured on Greek in Florence in 1396. From this point, the new
humanists pursued classical studies with vigour. When the Turks
captured Constantinople in 1453, many Greek scholars sought asylum in
Italy, which gave the movement further impetus.
> > The point is not to take the endpoints of the line too seriously. The
> >Fall of Rome happened about 500, but Late Classical holdovers cn be found;
> >likewise, when did Rome fall for Britain? How important was it to them, 500
> >CE?
>
> Of course. The advantage of a set time is that everyone knows
> what you are talking about. You can present out-of-period things
> with caveats exactly as you do above.
>
> Indeed, this sort of thing happens all the time.
So what are you arguing about?
Renia
John Wilkins
Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Another thing that is change over time is biological evolution, and it
comes as no surprise that similar debates occur there. In fact, this is
the debate over grades - classes of things that share similar properties
- and clades - historically defined groups. One philosopher of biology
is also a renown historian of science, and he applies this distinction
to the history of science. I suspect it can be generalised. This is
David Hull. He notes the difference between a Tiffany lamp, made by a
specific manufacturer and designer at a specific time, and a
Tiffany-style lamp, made in imitation of the former. The difference is
reflected in the price tag.
You are, I think, using a grade-based definition of serfdom - it is a
class of institutions that can be instantiated in different, and
unrelated, societies. A similar approach, for example, might be the
definition of something like shamanism. Many anthropologists use this
term to apply to any wise-man-with-ritual-powers. But a historian would
say, shamanism is properly applied only to Siberian society. All else is
merely shaman-like. Serfdom is, likewise, an institution that applies to
a specific time and place (however vaguely delineated - this is really
not the issue here; everything is vaguely defined at the appropriate
scale), and if serfdom in one place is "the same" as serfdom in another,
it must be due to diffusion and direct influence, or else it is just a
"serfdom-like" institution.
This is what Hull would call a "phylogenetic" conception of the
institution. I believe the grade-based account is referred to as
"functionalism" in history and sociology. It is ahistorical, since so
long as "the" institution can be instantiated by some society, the class
is "existent".
Oh, Hull's book is, by the way:
Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of
the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
He speaks of science itself as having arisen once and once alone -
whatever else arose in non-western societies was not science until it
merged with and was subsumed under the western tradition.
>
>
> > Another example: We could speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". That
> > clearly started at different times in different places, so it
> > cannot be used as a general historical period. It *can* be used
> > in specific places and sometimes is.
>
> But we don't speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". Presumably you are
> implying that the names given to eras are random, so any old name
> could be given to any old era, but wouldn't necessarily define it.
> Your argument would hold some merit, if that was the case. There is
> something to be said for new scholars and journalists inventing names
> for modern eras (The Sixties, Inter-war), but even these are eras
> within eras.
There is nothing positive to be said for journalists *using*, let alone
messing with, the English language. What they do in other languages is
for native speakers of those languages to sort out.
>
> Most names of eras aren't precise descriptions of exact times and
> exact social customs, and were never intended to be. They act as
> compartments in huge periods in time which are easily recognisable to
> the layman. Scholars, however, know that there are overlaps between
> one era and another, and differences between one place and another.
>
>
> > > Of course the terms are messy, but nearly everybody gets some sense
> > >of what you mean when you use them. Certainly Renaissance historians
> > >can go over the lines a bit, and claim that everyone from Da Vinci to
> > >Newton is part of "their" period. This indicates that the period
> > >themselves overlap- after all, roughly contemporaneous to Da Vinci, we
> > >have Thomas Malory.
> >
> > Sure. But I have a thing about the term "renaissance" just as
> > I do with the term "enlightenment". I prefer "early modern".
The trouble with terms like "modern" (as in "the Modern Synthesis" or
"modernism") is that they are relative to the speaker, not to the times
they denote. What is modern *now* will be quaintly parochial in a very
short time. Likewise the even worse neologism "postmodern" (as Paul
already knows, I am a prepostmodernist - I don't know what modernism was
or is, nor even less what postmodernism is or will be, but I am a strong
adherent of whatever it is postmodernism is the successor to - which is
clearly not anything that can be rightly termed "modernism", since I
have no architectural pretensions or interests).
>
> What is wrong with the term "The Enlightenment" as an artistic and
> philosophical movement within the 18th Century? It's a term which
> encompasses themes, not exact actions. The growth of science and
> diminishing influence of the Church in Europe (and America) allowed
> philosophical minds to discard old taboos and superstitions and become
> enlightened in their awareness of individual uniqueness. It gives
> definition to a period in which a change in human thinking took place,
> but no one claims that it began or ended at an exact time, or that it
> took place in every town and village.
>
> The Renaissance is an earlier case in point, in which a change in
> human thinking occurred. It is a broad term, which Jebb defined as
> "the whole process of transition in Europe from the medieval to the
> modern order". So it is not the same thing as early modern. The term
> itself means "rebirth", and that refers to the revival of learning
> which was an agent in the emancipation of the mind. It has been
> generally accepted to have begun with Petrarch and Boccaccio but the
> real movement dates from when Manual Chrysoloras of Constantinople
> lectured on Greek in Florence in 1396. From this point, the new
> humanists pursued classical studies with vigour. When the Turks
> captured Constantinople in 1453, many Greek scholars sought asylum in
> Italy, which gave the movement further impetus.
Again the problem lies with a functional grade-definition of the
movement. Not all of the Renaissance was a rebirth, and not all rebirths
of classical knowledge were part of the Renaissance. It helps, I think,
if you treat epochal names as proper nouns, and functional or gradist
names as generic or mass nouns.
>
> > > The point is not to take the endpoints of the line too seriously.
> > >The Fall of Rome happened about 500, but Late Classical holdovers cn be
> > >found; likewise, when did Rome fall for Britain? How important was it
> > >to them, 500 CE?
> >
> > Of course. The advantage of a set time is that everyone knows
> > what you are talking about. You can present out-of-period things
> > with caveats exactly as you do above.
> >
> > Indeed, this sort of thing happens all the time.
>
> So what are you arguing about?
>
Words. Nothing more interesting to argue about, surely :-)
[Sorry, Paul, but it seems to be my year for disputing friends.]
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Brian M. Scott
Wilkins) wrote:
>Sticking my nose, and possibly foot, in it:
>Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
>> It seems to me that you have come across these names for historical
>> periods and tried to read up on them, but don't actually understand
>> their significance. You are by training, a scientist, and your
>> specialisation within medieval history, is technology, or science. You
>> seem to see history as a science, rather than as one of the
>> humanities. This illustrates the difference in training between a
>> studient of the humanties and a student of science.
<sigh> Don't you ever tire of this canard?
>> You want cultural movements to begin and end in specific places within
>> specific rules. But they don't. They develop slowly and spread, so it
>> can rarely be said when such an age began or when it ended. Indeed,
>> they probably never end, but develop into something else. That is the
>> study of history. Change over time.
It seems to me that this is exactly what Paul is saying, and that
this is why he wants to distinguish historical periods (with
boundaries defined chronologically, if not necessarily precisely)
from cultural movements, processes, etc.
[...]
>> > Another example: We could speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". That
>> > clearly started at different times in different places, so it
>> > cannot be used as a general historical period. It *can* be used
>> > in specific places and sometimes is.
>> But we don't speak of the "Age of Gunpowder".
Well, there is _Age of Gunpowder Empires, 1450-1800 (Essays on
Global and Comparative History)_, by William H. McNeill. Not to
mention:
<http://web.mit.edu/4.614/www/gunpowder.html>: 'The Age of the
Gunpowder Empires'
<http://casl.umd.umich.edu/MALS/courselist.html>: LIBS 570 MALS
CORE SEMINAR: HISTORY OF WARFARE DURING THE AGE OF GUNPOWDER,
1500-2000
It does appear, however, that the terms 'Age of Gunpowder' and
'Gunpowder Age' are at present used mostly by historical gamers.
[...]
Brian
John A Geck
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3f2e8394...@enews.newsguy.com...
> It seems to me that this is exactly what Paul is saying, and that
> this is why he wants to distinguish historical periods (with
> boundaries defined chronologically, if not necessarily precisely)
> from cultural movements, processes, etc.
>
> [...]
I think everyone is confused as to _why_ these historical periods, defined
chronologically (if not necessarily precisely) are chosen. It's actually
because that's _when_ the cultural movements, processes, etc. were taking
place. There's no reason to separate the two. And if he wants to, he
certainly can, and there would be no confusion:
PG: I think that the Middle Ages began very near to 500, and concluded very
nearly 1500.
Other: Oh, you mean near the complete fall of Rome, thus beginning a less
Mediterranean-centric Western Europe, and concluding right about a period of
discovery, when all that stopped?
You can do this with whatever parameters, not necessarily trade-based,
that you wish.
See why the time periods were labeled where they were? Cultural reasons.
John
erilar
<i3kXa.94042$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> In all honesty, I haven't seen much difficulty arise because people
> use
> the terms "medieval" and "renaissance." Typically they only do come up
> when
> people are talking within a single cultural context, and thus the
> historical
> period can be easily defined.
A few years ago I audited an art history course that covered "ancient
and medieval" one semester and began the second with "renaissance". The
centuries didn't match for me at ALL, though the course was
interesting--looking at familiar things from a new angle usually is. In
art history, the Renaissance was beginning (in Italy) before other areas
had passed the heights of "medieval", and I couldn't figure out when
German art made the switch, if there was one, because that was the last
area(geographically) we looked at. One of my problems was that my German
cultural history of Europe divided the periods quite differently, and my
acquaintance with it is primarily from German museums as well, but even
so, it's not just cultural context; time and geography are important
factors.
John A Geck
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
Interesting...although I am curious, when you say "other areas," which do
you mean? What do you mean by "heights of medieval?" And in what ways was
the Renaissance beginning in Italy? You see, the conflict between Italy and
Germany that you describe is rather interesting, given their very close
history. I would be interested (thus meaning I am ignorant) in how Germany
divides the periods differently; could you let me know?
As for the last part of your statement, I think that what you're saying
indicates that it _is_ the cultural context- geography can be seen in
cultural divisions, and if the time periods are different, then why and how
so? Certainly it is because they use different culutral markers?
John
Renia
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:02:33 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Sticking my nose, and possibly foot, in it:
>
> >Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> It seems to me that you have come across these names for historical
> >> periods and tried to read up on them, but don't actually understand
> >> their significance. You are by training, a scientist, and your
> >> specialisation within medieval history, is technology, or science. You
> >> seem to see history as a science, rather than as one of the
> >> humanities. This illustrates the difference in training between a
> >> studient of the humanties and a student of science.
>
> <sigh> Don't you ever tire of this canard?
>
> >> You want cultural movements to begin and end in specific places within
> >> specific rules. But they don't. They develop slowly and spread, so it
> >> can rarely be said when such an age began or when it ended. Indeed,
> >> they probably never end, but develop into something else. That is the
> >> study of history. Change over time.
>
> It seems to me that this is exactly what Paul is saying, and that
> this is why he wants to distinguish historical periods (with
> boundaries defined chronologically, if not necessarily precisely)
> from cultural movements, processes, etc.
So why should Paul, a chemist, have the privilege of re-defining the
nature of historical study? And why should you, a mathematician and
Paul's puppet, have the privilege of seconding him?
> [...]
>
> >> > Another example: We could speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". That
> >> > clearly started at different times in different places, so it
> >> > cannot be used as a general historical period. It *can* be used
> >> > in specific places and sometimes is.
>
> >> But we don't speak of the "Age of Gunpowder".
>
> Well, there is _Age of Gunpowder Empires, 1450-1800 (Essays on
> Global and Comparative History)_, by William H. McNeill. Not to
> mention:
>
> <http://web.mit.edu/4.614/www/gunpowder.html>: 'The Age of the
> Gunpowder Empires'
>
> <http://casl.umd.umich.edu/MALS/courselist.html>: LIBS 570 MALS
> CORE SEMINAR: HISTORY OF WARFARE DURING THE AGE OF GUNPOWDER,
> 1500-2000
>
> It does appear, however, that the terms 'Age of Gunpowder' and
> 'Gunpowder Age' are at present used mostly by historical gamers.
These all sound like nouveau-eras coined by hopeful scholars who want
to invent some new thing of historical significance. I do not see
these as examples at all. Thankfully, you define them as "gamers".
Renia
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
Paul J Gans
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3f2e8394...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> It seems to me that this is exactly what Paul is saying, and that
>> this is why he wants to distinguish historical periods (with
>> boundaries defined chronologically, if not necessarily precisely)
>> from cultural movements, processes, etc.
>>
>> [...]
>> Brian
>I think everyone is confused as to _why_ these historical periods, defined
>chronologically (if not necessarily precisely) are chosen. It's actually
>because that's _when_ the cultural movements, processes, etc. were taking
>place. There's no reason to separate the two. And if he wants to, he
>certainly can, and there would be no confusion:
I don't think anyone is really confused. The boundaries are
arbitrary (and so are the names). They have, however, been
"sanctified" by common usage.
And I don't think that they have anything to do with cultural
movements. Medieval history, as originally conceived, was mainly
a litany of kings and battles.
Studies of medieval culture are quite recent; most of them
date back only 20 years.
I have no idea why this topic ever came up. (I certainly
did not raise it.) I find it somewhat fruitless to discuss,
especially since all sorts of folks seem to want to take
issue with *me* simply because I'm pointing out what current
usage is.
> PG: I think that the Middle Ages began very near to 500, and concluded very
>nearly 1500.
>Other: Oh, you mean near the complete fall of Rome, thus beginning a less
>Mediterranean-centric Western Europe, and concluding right about a period of
>discovery, when all that stopped?
> You can do this with whatever parameters, not necessarily trade-based,
>that you wish.
> See why the time periods were labeled where they were? Cultural reasons.
No.
Look, you can have whatever idea you wish. All I'm saying is
that historians did not do it that way. The Middle Ages or
the medieval period or whatever was named and more or less dated
over 100 years ago as far as English speaking historians were
concerned. And they were NOT concerned with culture per se.
Once the period was defined and once its study became commonplace
people began looking at all aspects of it. So now you have the
religion of the Middle Ages, the Art of the Middle Ages, the
economy of the Middle Ages, etc., etc.
But the period was not named for cultural reasons. And I'd
be surprised if you can find a historian from 1850-1950 who
said it was.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Renia, I am *NOT* redefining the nature of historical
study. I simply noted that tradition defines the Middle
Ages as the period from about 500 AD to 1500 AD.
I am also saying that the period was defined without
reference to cultural events.
Are you arguing with any of that?
---- Paul J. Gans
John A Geck
Computer froze just as I finished and I had to recover it oddly. :)
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bgn3pc$4iu$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >I think everyone is confused as to _why_ these historical periods,
defined
> >chronologically (if not necessarily precisely) are chosen. It's actually
> >because that's _when_ the cultural movements, processes, etc. were taking
> >place. There's no reason to separate the two. And if he wants to, he
> >certainly can, and there would be no confusion:
>
> I don't think anyone is really confused. The boundaries are
> arbitrary (and so are the names). They have, however, been
> "sanctified" by common usage.
>
> And I don't think that they have anything to do with cultural
> movements. Medieval history, as originally conceived, was mainly
> a litany of kings and battles.
>
> Studies of medieval culture are quite recent; most of them
> date back only 20 years.
>
> I have no idea why this topic ever came up. (I certainly
> did not raise it.) I find it somewhat fruitless to discuss,
> especially since all sorts of folks seem to want to take
> issue with *me* simply because I'm pointing out what current
> usage is.
>
Medieval history was certainly a litany of kings and battles. Do I deny
that? I am simply stating why the endpoints of this particular timeline were
chosen; they were not arbitrary. How on earth can you really think that? Nor
are the names. The names were used before the endpoints were clearly
deliniated; the endpoints were thus chosen for a specific reason, and they
do vary from institution to institution. However, they seem to generally
correspond to the final end of Roman control over the greater part of
Western Europe and continue until the period of discovery. How is this not
tied to culture? Are you saying that historical events are not tied to
culture? How are you defining culture? If we consider that it has something
to do with the social traits, behaviors, and forms of governance of a social
or geographic grouping, how can the Fall of Rome be an arbitrary endpoint?
> > PG: I think that the Middle Ages began very near to 500, and concluded
very
> >nearly 1500.
> >Other: Oh, you mean near the complete fall of Rome, thus beginning a less
> >Mediterranean-centric Western Europe, and concluding right about a period
of
> >discovery, when all that stopped?
>
> > You can do this with whatever parameters, not necessarily
trade-based,
> >that you wish.
> > See why the time periods were labeled where they were? Cultural
reasons.
>
> No.
>
> Look, you can have whatever idea you wish. All I'm saying is
> that historians did not do it that way. The Middle Ages or
> the medieval period or whatever was named and more or less dated
> over 100 years ago as far as English speaking historians were
> concerned. And they were NOT concerned with culture per se.
Sorry, you're confused. The term was used as early as the Renaissance, and
they were using specifically as a derogatory term in regard to culture. The
term is laden with cultural concern. That's how it was born.
> Once the period was defined and once its study became commonplace
> people began looking at all aspects of it. So now you have the
> religion of the Middle Ages, the Art of the Middle Ages, the
> economy of the Middle Ages, etc., etc.
>
> But the period was not named for cultural reasons. And I'd
> be surprised if you can find a historian from 1850-1950 who
> said it was.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Care to enlighten me as to why the dates were chosen, then? I really
don't see how you can separate history from a term as nebulous as "culture."
But I repeat myself.
You're not being coy, are you?
Pulling quickly from the books I have at hand, let us consider J.R.
Strayer, Wester Europe in the Middle Ages, 3rd edition (1st ed being 1955).
From the introduction (page 3):
"What were the Middle Ages? The conventional answer is that they were
the centuries between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginnings of
modern European civilization. Scholars have argued, and will argue
endlessly, as to the exact dates of these two terminal points, but we do not
have to wait for them to reach agreement. Most historians would admit that
the Roman Empire was well on its way to decline by the fifth entury and that
many of the characteristic elements of modern civilizations were apparent by
1500."
From him, we see slightly different endpoints, but the main gist of the
thought is that the points are not arbitrary. They are messy, and crossing
over is allowed, which is something that I have already pointed out to you,
but for ease of use the points are given dates corressponding to certain
cultural events.
One more; William Caroll Bark, Origins of the Medieval World, 1958. From
the chapter entitled "Perspective on the Early Middle Ages."
I won't quote, because it is long (I will if it is asked for), but Bark
too claims that the endpoints may be vague, but they are centered on two
ages of transition "in the narrow and proper sense, [ages] characterized by
unusually rapid and significant change and marking a decisive passage from
one stage to another." He goes on to remark, "Naturally such an intermixture
[of "old and new institutions and values"] makes it impossible to date the
beginning of the Middle Ages with pinpoint precision." Once again, we have a
historian remarking that the endpoints are chosen with consideration put on
cultural trends, and again, this is a historian writing from the 1950s. In
the same chapter, he quotes George Burton Adams, a medievalist from "half a
century earlier," who claims that the dates of the period had been fixed (if
I read correctly), but Bark quotes little.
However, in doing a quick search for quotes by Adams, I did find a quote
from his book Civilization in the Middle Ages (1908), in which he seems to
be talking about a particular transition that had to do with a change of
governing policy (i.e. a cultural aspect): "It is to them [the Franks] that
the political inheritance of the Roman Empire passed; to them came the honor
of taking up and carrying on . . . the political work which Rome had been
doing." George Burton Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages, pp.
137-144.
In all, I feel like you're beating the wrong side of the right bush; you
agreed earlier that the terms are cultural (i.e. "You had it right when you
said cultural"),
but you seem to think that the reason the dates are chosen has nothing to do
with culture.
Are you confused as to what precisely that term can encompass? Am I?
Take a deep breath and look at what you're claiming: " don't think anyone is
really confused. The boundaries are arbitrary (and so are the names)."
You know that's not true.
John
P.S. With all respect, please stop saying that you're defending common
usage. The historians (since the term culture seems to upset you) chose the
terms based on historical events. The reason they did this is that they
changed the way the world worked. I'm saying is that this is a study of
cultural phenomenon, no matter what term you apply to it.
Brian M. Scott
>b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote in message news:<3f2e8394...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:02:33 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>> >Sticking my nose, and possibly foot, in it:
>> >Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote to Paul:
[...]
>> >> You want cultural movements to begin and end in specific places within
>> >> specific rules. But they don't. They develop slowly and spread, so it
>> >> can rarely be said when such an age began or when it ended. Indeed,
>> >> they probably never end, but develop into something else. That is the
>> >> study of history. Change over time.
>> It seems to me that this is exactly what Paul is saying, and that
>> this is why he wants to distinguish historical periods (with
>> boundaries defined chronologically, if not necessarily precisely)
>> from cultural movements, processes, etc.
>So why should Paul, a chemist, have the privilege of re-defining the
>nature of historical study?
You're not paying attention: what I said is that you and Paul are
in agreement here. Does that mean that *you* are re-defining the
nature of historical study?
And since you keep harping on the irrelevant fact that Paul has a
PhD in chemistry, I will make the equally irrelevant observation
that he's a damn' sight closer to being a professional historian
than you are. Try sticking to the substance of the argument
instead of imitating Inger the Credential-Happy.
> And why should you, a mathematician and
>Paul's puppet, have the privilege of seconding him?
I didn't offer any opinion of my own; I merely pointed out that
you seemed to have misunderstood Paul's. Why should I be able to
do this? Because this is Usenet, and anyone can play. Why do I
choose to do it? Because I try to sort out misunderstandings
when I notice them, and because your gratuitous and repetitious
insults get up my nose. Why do I often disagree with your views
on history and historiography? Because I have a better
understanding of the subject than you do: in many ways your
notion of historical study is stuck in the early 20th century at
the latest.
As it happens, however, by and large I agree with what you said
above starting with 'They develop slowly ...' and ending with
'... into something else'.
>> >> > Another example: We could speak of the "Age of Gunpowder". That
>> >> > clearly started at different times in different places, so it
>> >> > cannot be used as a general historical period. It *can* be used
>> >> > in specific places and sometimes is.
>> >> But we don't speak of the "Age of Gunpowder".
>> Well, there is _Age of Gunpowder Empires, 1450-1800 (Essays on
>> Global and Comparative History)_, by William H. McNeill. Not to
>> mention:
>> <http://web.mit.edu/4.614/www/gunpowder.html>: 'The Age of the
>> Gunpowder Empires'
>> <http://casl.umd.umich.edu/MALS/courselist.html>: LIBS 570 MALS
>> CORE SEMINAR: HISTORY OF WARFARE DURING THE AGE OF GUNPOWDER,
>> 1500-2000
>> It does appear, however, that the terms 'Age of Gunpowder' and
>> 'Gunpowder Age' are at present used mostly by historical gamers.
>These all sound like nouveau-eras coined by hopeful scholars who want
>to invent some new thing of historical significance.
I doubt it. Do you have any idea who William H. McNeill is?
Hint: He doesn't need that kind of boost.
>I do not see
>these as examples at all. Thankfully, you define them as "gamers".
You're still not paying attention. The specific examples that I
presented *are* academic and are *not* from the world of
historical gaming.
Brian
Renia
Oh, I misunderstood. Brian, above, says you "want to distinguish
historical periods . . . from cultural movements, processes, etc."
> I am also saying that the period was defined without
> reference to cultural events.
You're wrong there.
medieval: [Lat. medius = middle; oev(um) = an age, and Eng. adju.
suff. -al]
A. As adj.: Pertaining or relating to the Middle Ages.
B. As subst. : One who belonged to the Middle Ages. (e.g. "This view
of landscape differs from that of the medievals." - Ruskin)
medievalism,
s. The principles, manners or spirit of the Middle Ages, especially in
matters of religion and art.
Source: Lloyd's Encyclopaedic Dictionary, 1893.
Middle Ages or Medieval Period. Name given to the ten or eleven
centuries beginning with the 5th of our era, and ending with the 15th
- the centuries intervening between what are called Ancient and Modern
times. Definite dates for the beginning and the end of the Middle Ages
can only be assigned arbitrarily; thos most in favour are the sack of
Rome by Alaric the Goth, 410, or the deposition of the last Roman
emperor in Italy, Romulus Augustulus, 476, and the capture of
Contantinople by the Turks, 1453, or the discovery of America by
Columbus, 1492. The essential facts are that early inthe fifth
century, the old Roman civilization of Western Europe was submerged by
the barbarian flood of Teutonic invasion; a new civilization gradually
emerged in a new Europe; and the the new Europe awoke gradually to
fresh intellectual ideas, and suddenly to the existence of a whole new
world outside itself. The Middle Ages again fell into two main
periods, roughly known as the Dark Ages and the Age of Chivarly,
separated by the epoch of the Norman expansion in the second half of
the 11th century and the opening of the prolonged contest between the
empire and the papacy. Some writers restrict the term Middle Ages to
the Age of chilvalry.
Source: Harmsworth's Encyclopedia, 1923.
> Are you arguing with any of that?
Yes
Renia
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
John, I've said that since the start. I have no idea why you
are arguing with me. If you want to think that these points
were "cultural" (whatever that means) go right ahead.
>How is this not
>tied to culture? Are you saying that historical events are not tied to
>culture? How are you defining culture? If we consider that it has something
>to do with the social traits, behaviors, and forms of governance of a social
>or geographic grouping, how can the Fall of Rome be an arbitrary endpoint?
I'm not defining culture. I didn't even bring culture up.
I have no idea what culture has to do with any of this except
in the most general way.
>> > PG: I think that the Middle Ages began very near to 500, and concluded
>very
>> >nearly 1500.
>> >Other: Oh, you mean near the complete fall of Rome, thus beginning a less
>> >Mediterranean-centric Western Europe, and concluding right about a period
>of
>> >discovery, when all that stopped?
>>
>> > You can do this with whatever parameters, not necessarily
>trade-based,
>> >that you wish.
>> > See why the time periods were labeled where they were? Cultural
>reasons.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Look, you can have whatever idea you wish. All I'm saying is
>> that historians did not do it that way. The Middle Ages or
>> the medieval period or whatever was named and more or less dated
>> over 100 years ago as far as English speaking historians were
>> concerned. And they were NOT concerned with culture per se.
>Sorry, you're confused. The term was used as early as the Renaissance, and
>they were using specifically as a derogatory term in regard to culture. The
>term is laden with cultural concern. That's how it was born.
That's how the NAME was born, not how the period was delineated.
As I've said, if you wish to discerne "cultural concern", go
right ahead.
>> Once the period was defined and once its study became commonplace
>> people began looking at all aspects of it. So now you have the
>> religion of the Middle Ages, the Art of the Middle Ages, the
>> economy of the Middle Ages, etc., etc.
>>
>> But the period was not named for cultural reasons. And I'd
>> be surprised if you can find a historian from 1850-1950 who
>> said it was.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
> Care to enlighten me as to why the dates were chosen, then? I really
>don't see how you can separate history from a term as nebulous as "culture."
>But I repeat myself.
This is getting quite tedious. I suggest that you check on
the back history of this thread. I've stated the dates that
are customary and I've given the reasons why they were chosen.
If you wish to consider those reasons "cultural", go right
ahead. I do not believe that is what historians from the
period 1850-1950 thought those reasons were, but I could be
misinformed.
I know exactly what I am claiming. I've been claiming it on
this newsgroup for years. I have no idea where you got your
impression of my opnions.
>P.S. With all respect, please stop saying that you're defending common
>usage. The historians (since the term culture seems to upset you) chose the
>terms based on historical events. The reason they did this is that they
>changed the way the world worked. I'm saying is that this is a study of
>cultural phenomenon, no matter what term you apply to it.
Please present evidence that I ever defined the start and end of
the Middle Ages by anything other than HISTORICAL EVENTS.
It is terribly tedious arguing with a person who asserts MY
OPINION right back at me while claiming that MY OPINION is not
MY OPINION.
---- Paul J. Gans
erilar
<mhxXa.99225$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Interesting...although I am curious, when you say "other areas," which do
> you mean?
Geography. This was an ART history class and the dates for
"Renaissance art" started much earlier south of the Alps, despite the
earlier HRE that included both German and Italian territories. It was
definitely pre-1500 8-)
>What do you mean by "heights of medieval?"
Hochmittelalter in Deutschland, particularly in literature.
> And in what ways was
> the Renaissance beginning in Italy?
Painting in particular, according to the class I was in.
>You see, the conflict between Italy
> and
> Germany that you describe is rather interesting, given their very close
> history.
Close in that they had the same emperor, not in paying attention to
his claimed sovereignty 8-) The Staufer emperors spent a lot of time
going back and forth between the two.
I would be interested (thus meaning I am ignorant) in how
> Germany
> divides the periods differently; could you let me know?
My connection is probably going to time out while I do this...
Greece
Rome
Karl der Grosse to Fred II
the time of the monasteries
culture of the medieval nobility
rise of the cities
renaissance
discovery of the world
time of absolutism
etc.
So that was part of it. Another source for my confusion was the fact
that my studies centered on the languages and literature of the
germanic-speaking lands 500-1500, and I have only really begun to put
together a historical context for this background fairly recently.
> As for the last part of your statement, I think that what you're saying
> indicates that it _is_ the cultural context- geography can be seen in
> cultural divisions, and if the time periods are different, then why and
> how
> so? Certainly it is because they use different culutral markers?
Inasmuch as I began, as you can see, by accepting the 500-1500
boundaries, I can only suggest that the scholars who "set" them were
wiser than they knew, because they do seem to work fairly well
culturally, though the edges are fuzzy.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Yusuf B Gursey
> In article <bga68q$3ot$2...@reader1.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
> > >> and 1500 AD. This is an arbitrary choice and defines a time rather than a
> > >> function.
>
> > >include space as well as time. For example what are the borders of the
> > >medieval period?
> >
> > The period is usually defined as a fixed slice of time. The
> > years you give are commonly used.
> >
> > For a long while in English-speaking countries the borders were
> > essentially England and France with bits of other countries
> > sneaking in from time to time.
>
> Most of it still is from what I can see.
>
>
> >
> > Today the term can be used world-wide.
>
> I noticed. However this breakdown by a period from 500 to 1500 only
for arabs c. 1500 marks the rise of the ottomans in the east and the
end of arab andalusia in the west and so it is VERY significant, and
these are two developments significant for europe as well.
as for c. 500, well, arabs were Roman - Byzantine subjects, so
arguably what affects their rulers affects them, and arguably it marks
the late "Jahiliyya" period described in Islamic sources and Jahiliyya
poetry (and tid bits of evidence from the surrounding regions), in
preparation for the Islamic period a century or so later. to say
nothing for an arab interested in North Arican history.
so keeping the dates a little fuzzy, I would say they are significant.
> makes sense in Western Europe. What would be the significance to an Arab
> or a Chinese for these dates? It does not make their history more
> meaningful. Sort of defeats the whole concept of breaking up history
> into meaningful divisions.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > I think that it makes no sense to define a historical period
> > by a process. That would mean that period X started at
> > different times in different places and may not yet have
> > started in other places.
> >
>
John A Geck
neither would you, so I'll show you what I've seen you say, and say again
what precisely I take issue with.
You say on 31 July:
"Exactly. In the west the rough divisions are:
1500 BC - 500 BC are "biblical" or "pre-classical" or whatever.
500 BC - 500 AD are the classical period.
500 AD - 1500 AD are the medieval period
1500 AD - 2500 AD are the modern period.
Isn't that easy? 1000 years to a period and nice round dates too!
Of course, you are free to chose your own dates. Many historians have."
At this point, I'm still with you. I agree with you. I say to myself, "Hmm,
that seems to be how it's done. Of course, many take issue with the
endpoints by a century or so (as you said yourself), but this is because of
various _cultural_ holdovers or portents in the area around the endpoint."
Then I see you the very next day saying, "But we talk about the Renaissance
as a rediscovery, not as a historical period. And there area many who speak
of the
renaissance of the 12th century. It started in the north."
And I think, "Hmm, it sounds as though Paul is not only denying what he said
yesterday, but he's also invalidating people that say that they study
Renaissance literature, e.g. Certainly they don't think of their work as
studying only rediscoveries. Further, he's bringing in the 12th century
Renaissance, which lends a lot to the rediscovery of classical knowledge
through Arab scholars."
I thus write and say as much:
"Further, I'm certain that even C.H. Haskins would qualify the claim that
the 12th Century Renaissance began in the north. After all, it was in the
more southern locales of western Europe that the classical knowledge was
rediscovered (e.g. Al-Andalus)." I go on to add, "Haskins used the term to
talk about a cultural,
and thus historical phenomenon that took place during a set period of time,
not simply in the sense of a rediscovery."
You respond, the very same day, August 1: "There was more to it than the
"rediscovery" of classical knowlege." And you add, "You had it right when
you said 'cultural'."
Thus in less then ten hours from what you had posted earlier, you criticize
your own remark, claim that I was the one that made the error, and add, as a
sort of aside, that culture and history are in some way divorced from each
other.
I pointed this out to you the next day:
["> There was more to it than the "rediscovery" of classical
> knowlege.
You're the one who said 'But we talk about the Renaissance as a
rediscovery, not as a historical period.' By saying this you support the
whole point that the Renaissance is something larger than a series of
rediscoveries, and thus a term that can be applied to a period of change
...
> You had it right when you said 'cultural'.
Exactly; any sort of cultural development is naturally tied into a
period of time. It doesn't come and go; rather, it starts with some distinct
important events (i.e. Fall of Rome, when talking about Middle Ages), and
then the period in which these changes are assimilated goes on, until there
are some other big changes. That's why Haskins could say the '12th Century
Renaissance,' and not 'the rediscovery that happened at some point in the
12th century.'
Of course the terms are messy, but nearly everybody gets some sense of
what you mean when you use them. Certainly Renaissance historians can go
over the lines a bit, and claim that everyone from Da Vinci to Newton is
part of "their" period. This indicates that the period themselves
overlap-after all, roughly contemporaneous to Da Vinci, we have Thomas
Malory.
The point is not to take the endpoints of the line too seriously. The
Fall of Rome happened about 500, but Late Classical holdovers cn be found;
likewise, when did Rome fall for Britain? How important was it to them, 500
CE?"]
I hoped in doing this that we had established areas in which we agreed, and
areas in which there were disagreement. I pointed out the contradiction that
you made of your own earlier term (i.e. Renaissance is a rediscovery, not a
historical period), and then went on to clarify what I meant by the term
"culture," fearing that you might have the definition confused. I then
qualified my remarks by agreeing that the terms are messy, and stressed that
the endpoints are not definite.
To which you responded: "Then it seems to me that you are using the term to
describe a process and not a set period of years. Nothing wrong with that --
after all, there is no law covering this sort of thing," succeeding in being
both coy ("it seems to me," when I had clearly stated that very fact, and
shown that this is in concordance with the process historians used to
deliniate the periods), and patronizing ("Nothing wrong with that"). Then
you added, again in a sense of self-contradiction: "No. I take the view you
took above. The term applies to a process. In fact different people use the
term "renaissance" differently.We've just got to live with it. Your earlier
remark in the same post seemed to imply that I was developing my own
peculiar definition of "Middle Ages," and that was okay by you, but then you
proceeded to later agree with me, when the entire time you've been claiming
to define it only as it is in current usage. You supported the general, but
poorly defined sense of contradiction by adding:
"I don't agree. What you wrote is true IF applied to one cultural area.
It isn't true if you attempt to apply it to several. For example serfdom
came to different nations at very different times. And it disappeared at
different times. Of course, "serfdom" isn't well-defined, but even in a
broad sense one can see my point." Which clearly isn't the same thing at
all; from the time I commented, I described a general sensibility of
"medieval," to which you countered by bringing up a specific institution.
You concluded by agreeing with me, saying that the "advantage of a set time
is that everyone knows what you are talking about. You can present
out-of-period things with caveats exactly as you do above. Indeed, this sort
of thing happens all the time. [patronizing again, yes?]"
I felt rather assauged, but I still felt like you were misunderstanding
the reason that these set time periods exist. I tried to conclude the
discussion with a final post, saying that yes, we agree the endpoints are
messy, but there doesn't really seem to be all that much confusion over the
whole thing.
But then Brian Scott got into it, and said, "It seems to me that this is
exactly what Paul is saying, and that this is why he wants to distinguish
historical periods (with
boundaries defined chronologically, if not necessarily precisely) from
cultural movements, processes, etc." I came to the conclusion that we both
agree on the boundaries, but you seemed to feel that they had nothing to do
with historical process. I wrote and said that the terms were born out of
tracing historical process. I hoped that settled it, but you disagreed,
saying that medival history "as originally conceived, was mainly a litany of
kings and battles." You took distinct issue with the fact that I used the
term cultural, which seemed to imply that you that governance was separate
from culture, something that is patently false. You then got defensive and
claimed only to be supporting current usage, which you were indeed doing,
but only the the most two-demensional sense. A later posting you added
concedes this point:
"I'm not defining culture. I didn't even bring culture up. I have no
idea what culture has to do with any of this except in the most general
way....This is getting quite tedious. I suggest that you check on the back
history of this thread. I've stated the dates that are customary and I've
given the reasons why they were chosen. If you wish to consider those
reasons "cultural", go right ahead. I do not believe that is what
historians from the period 1850-1950 thought those reasons were, but I could
be misinformed." You proceeded to get terribly defensive, and in doing so,
not reply to any of the points that I was makaing: "I know exactly what I am
claiming. I've been claiming it on this newsgroup for years. I have no
idea where you got your impression of my opnions.Please present evidence
that I ever defined the start and end of the Middle Ages by anything other
than HISTORICAL EVENTS. It is terribly tedious arguing with a person who
asserts MY
OPINION right back at me while claiming that MY OPINION is not MY OPINION."
Look, this is the heart of the matter, right here. You've been contradictory
in whatever your opinion is. My "evidence that [you] ever defined the start
and end of the Middle Ages by anything other than HISTORICAL EVENTS," is
that quote where you said they were "arbitrary."
This is how it worked, and I honestly defy you to bring any evidence that
contradicts the following in any substantial way:
The term "Middle Ages" was born out of the Renaissance, with much the
same idea as "Gothic art." It was derogatory and was used to define a period
that was substianally different from either the period before it, and the
period after it. These differences were cultural, and as such, they were
defined by historical events. As the period came to be studied in the 19th
century, a new romance was given to the period (again, because it was
substianlly different culturally, from what preceded or followed it), but
the term remained the same. As an interest in defining things came into real
vogue, it was decided that this nebulous period (defined only by culture,
but with a name anything but arbitrary) needed distinct endpoints. These
endpoints were and have been under debate, but they all have one thing in
common: they focus on historical events that drastically changed the culture
of the region in which the events took place. The historians that defined
these points may not have been as phobic as you are about the term
"culture," but they didn't use it in particular (although the quote from
Adams
shows that this is what they were thinking); however, there is no reason to
eschew our use of the term. I thought everyone knew what the term "culture"
meant. You clearly don't. Culture is the manifestation of the entire scope
of human activity, pertaining to art, religion, literature, history,
economics, and governance. The last three are at the heart of historical
research proper, the first three making important inroads. The last three
are what your 19th century historians used when defining their periods of
study.
My suggestion to you? Stop responding with emotion and defensiveness.
Understand the importance of fine definition in a messy field. Understand
why terms are used, and their entymology. Take care to consider what you
want say and what you have said before responding. If you take issue with
something someone says, list the points where you disagree (you barely
responded to my last comments). Have a complete understanding of terms you
use (e.g. "cultural," and "historical," and "arbitrary").
As I said before, your initial response to this question seemed right,
and it was; it was only when you began to elaborate that your
misunderstandings became clear.
As far as it goes in using the term to describe other geogrpahic
reasons, the only one that I've seen that wasn't in direct interaction with
Western Europe is the idea of "Feudal Japan," and even that is used only
when making comparisons to Western Europe in the Middle Ages. (I may have
seen once a reference to "medieval America," but that wasn't in a scholarly
forum.)
John A Geck
> reasons, the only one that I've seen that wasn't in direct interaction
with
> Western Europe is the idea of "Feudal Japan,"
Should be "geographic regions," plainly...
John A Geck
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
> In article
> <mhxXa.99225$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
> Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > Interesting...although I am curious, when you say "other areas," which
do
> > you mean?
> Geography. This was an ART history class and the dates for
> "Renaissance art" started much earlier south of the Alps, despite the
> earlier HRE that included both German and Italian territories. It was
> definitely pre-1500 8-)
Indeed; I've had similar experiences in the art courses that I've taken. I
wouldn't say that this art was more than a century earlier than 1500,
however. It's interesting, when talking about art. Do you think that part of
the problem of defining "renaissance" in that field (if indeed it's a
problem at all) comes from the persistance of Gothic architecture in England
and France, whereas Italy didn't really follow that, i.e. a divergence at
some earlier point? I'm refering to instances of Perpendicular and others in
England, whereas Italy did a lot to retain the basillican form, murality,
and so forth that was commonplace in late Antiquity. This is not yet a field
with which I would claim expertise, but I do find it an interesting
exercise...you see, I'm more aware of the evolution (not to use a loaded
word) of architecture over painting.
But what I _really_ meant when I asked what you meant by "other areas" was,
What areas in particular? I gathered that you were speaking geographically.
:)
> >What do you mean by "heights of medieval?"
> Hochmittelalter in Deutschland, particularly in literature.
The language in which you say it doesn't make all that much difference. So
when were examples of High Medieval literature in vogue in Deutchland? Could
you give me some titles? I'd love to expand my primary source knowledge of
that area.
[...]
Yes, you see, that's really the only point I was driving at: they might
not have used the term culture, but it is a fitting term now that we do use
it. I think they understood, nonetheless, that that was what they were
talking about.
I appreciate your listing of the German timeline of history. One
fascinating thing that I noticed is that they consider the Roman world to
procede up until Charlemagne...just amazing! I can see how that would put a
different spin on things. But I do see that Charlemagne up until Frederick
II basically encompasses what we would call the Early Middle Ages (minus
that bit after the Fall of Rome up until Charles). After that point, it
seems as though the divisions become significantly smaller. Though the
change from Frederick II to the time of the monasteries makes a certain
sense to me (one of my favorite HRE's by the way, Fred II), would you have
any idea of the historical events that surrounded these fast changes (e.g.
what caused the change from the time of the monasteries to the culture of
the medieval nobility)?
Again, thanks for the information,
John
erilar
has occurred to me that the problem is more with "renaissance" than with
"medieval"...
erilar
>Indeed; I've had similar experiences in the art courses that I've
taken. I
wouldn't say that this art was more than a century earlier than 1500,
however.
Oh, I'm not claiming a whole century. German Minnesang lasts well
into the 14th century, past Petrarch's birth, although it begins in the
13th, and the most famous "illustrated" manuscript of it, the Manesse
Codex, was produced in the 14th century. If you'd ever seen the
"portraits" of the poets included there, you'd never claim them for the
Renaissance, but we were looking at 14th century artists in Italy as
part of it.
My extremely heavy _Kulturgeschichte Europa_ starts the
Renaissance chapter in the 14th century, but also treats it in the "rise
of cities" chapter, so I went looking for another German book. _Alltag
Iim Spaetmittelalter_(everyday life in the late middle ages) includes
the whole 14th century, and in the chapter on artists includes a style
of art work that was classified as "Renaissance" in the art history
class.
But I finally found some dates in _Gothic_, another extremely
heavy book 8-), where it describes "the central period of Gothic
painting, between 1250 and 1450". This book considers Jan van Eyck "late
Gothic" but points out that he is also claimed as "early northern
Renaissance" . This ties directly into your question:
>It's interesting, when talking about art. Do you think that part of
the problem of defining "renaissance" in that field (if indeed it's a
problem at all) comes from the persistance of Gothic architecture in
England
and France, whereas Italy didn't really follow that, i.e. a divergence at
some earlier point?
France is totally outside my ken, but I think you may have a valid
point here in regard to German and Italian art of the time.
Having cited the above books, I need to pause here and offer the
bibliographic information, in case someone else wants to dig through
them. They're all neat books. The German ones were MAILED home from
Germany, not carried. I'm not a weightlifter!
Kühnel, Harry, ed. _Alltag im Spätmittelalter_. Verlag Styria:
Graz/Wien/Köln, 1984. ISBN 3-222-11528-1
Toman, Rolf, ed. _The Art of Gothic: Architecture Sculpture Painting_
. Könemann: Cologne, 1998. ISBN 3-8290-1741-3
Winzer, Fritz, ed. _Kulturgeschichte Europas von der Antike bis zur
Gegenwart._ Westermann: München. ISBN 3-14-50 9007-0
Note: anyone who has been as thoroughly brainwashed as to
bibliographic form as I once was will forever be irritated by books with
NO DATE OF PUBLICATION listed. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Every book I have
that has done this to me is German.
>But what I _really_ meant when I asked what you meant by "other areas"
was,
What areas in particular? I gathered that you were speaking
geographically.
I've lost the train of thought myself. Painting in Germany, I guess. My
knowledge of non-Germanic literature is limited to things I've read in
translation from time to time, and I don't even know if there IS a
"renaissance" in literature outside the development of the sonnet, if
that counts.
> >What do you mean by "heights of medieval?"
To me, it's primarily literary. All of Minnesang,
especially Walther von der Vogelweide. The literary epics of Hartmann
von Aue, Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and others,
and of course the _Nibelungenlied_.
> Could
you give me some titles? I'd love to expand my primary source knowledge
of
that area.
There are good English translations of Gottfried's _Tristan und
Isolde_, Wolfram's _Parzival_, and the _Nibelungenlied_, for instance,
available in paperback. Having only read Hartmann in German, I don't
know about translations of _Arme Heinrich_ or _Iwein_.
> that's really the only point I was driving at: they might
not have used the term culture, but it is a fitting term now that we do
use
it. I think they understood, nonetheless, that that was what they were
talking about.
Well, whether or not they understood it clearly, it does work
out.
> I appreciate your listing of the German timeline of history.
Please note: That's just one book. Others divide it up differently.
That is, however, the only thorough cultural history of all Europe I
have on hand. I like it in part because it is mainland-centered, unlike
the England/France bias of so many books written in English 8-)
>One
fascinating thing that I noticed is that they consider the Roman world to
procede up until Charlemagne...just amazing!
But didn't he see himself as inheriting the Roman mantle?
> But I do see that Charlemagne up until Frederick
II basically encompasses what we would call the Early Middle Ages.
Actually, with Fred II included, it goes further than that.
>Though the
change from Frederick II to the time of the monasteries makes a certain
sense to me
I think this chapter overlaps a good bit, as do the next couple. I
think the monastery chapter and the nobility chapter cover a lot of the
same time period, and the rise of the cities overlaps the latter as
well, just as it also overlaps the beginnings of the Renaissance.
Cities were pretty powerful in Italy earlier than north of the Alps, too.
and Fred 2 is MY emperor 8-)
John A Geck
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > >What do you mean by "heights of medieval?"
> To me, it's primarily literary. All of Minnesang,
> especially Walther von der Vogelweide. The literary epics of Hartmann
> von Aue, Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and others,
> and of course the _Nibelungenlied_.
>
> > Could
> you give me some titles? I'd love to expand my primary source knowledge
> of
> that area.
> There are good English translations of Gottfried's _Tristan und
> Isolde_, Wolfram's _Parzival_, and the _Nibelungenlied_, for instance,
> available in paperback. Having only read Hartmann in German, I don't
> know about translations of _Arme Heinrich_ or _Iwein_.
All works I've wanted to read, but have delayed, out of some fetishistic
desire to encounter them in their original language (which I still have to
learn, I'll admit). I've of course encountered the western samples of the
same basic tales, but I think it's plain that the Germans have their own
marvelous peculiarties, particularly in Parzival and the Nibelungenlied, if
I recall the summaries I've heard. I think that this holiday I'm currently
on will be the perfect opportunity to find a good English
translation...anyone know any?
> > that's really the only point I was driving at: they might
> not have used the term culture, but it is a fitting term now that we do
> use
> it. I think they understood, nonetheless, that that was what they were
> talking about.
>
> Well, whether or not they understood it clearly, it does work
> out.
I think it might be more a question of how we today define culture. Perhaps
the word wasn't in vogue in historiographical circles in the 19th century,
but, as you said, it does work. They knew they were talking about changes in
society and governance. Certainly today, we'd all agree that that is part of
culture, although judging from some of the backlash I recieved in using the
term, perhaps not :) .
> >One
> fascinating thing that I noticed is that they consider the Roman world to
> procede up until Charlemagne...just amazing!
> But didn't he see himself as inheriting the Roman mantle?
I do _not_ have any ready source to argue this adequately (although I could
do something through literature), but I think that we could say that Charles
saw himself more as a Restitutor Orbis, not as much inhierting the Roman
mantle as picking it up and dusting it off?
> > But I do see that Charlemagne up until Frederick
> II basically encompasses what we would call the Early Middle Ages.
> Actually, with Fred II included, it goes further than that.
Really, you think so? I always had the impression that the Crusades could be
considered a part more of the HMA. Am I confusing Frederik's?
> >Though the
> change from Frederick II to the time of the monasteries makes a certain
> sense to me
> I think this chapter overlaps a good bit, as do the next couple.
I got a sense from the titles that it might well be doing that.
> Cities were pretty powerful in Italy earlier than north of the Alps, too.
I wouldn't want to stress this too much, but Italy always does crop up as
the oddity. Perhaps because of it's proximity to the heart of the classical
world? The whole feudal (using the term unabashedly, in this sense) concept
just seems not to have been as much of an issue in Italy. Certainly, many
people had lords, and everyone had a cognisance that the Emperor (or the
Pope) was way up there somewhere, but in the cities, we see a real grasping
to the older ways of things.
>
> and Fred 2 is MY emperor 8-)
How do people feel about classifying him as an aethist? This could start a
new thread...
John
Uwe Müller
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:erilarloFRY-EEF5...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> snip >
> >One
> fascinating thing that I noticed is that they consider the Roman world to
> procede up until Charlemagne...just amazing!
> But didn't he see himself as inheriting the Roman mantle?
Between the late Roman times and the Karolingians there is the Migration age
and the Merovingians.
As far as architecture goes the famous north german brick gothic reaches
well up to the late 16th c. as does the usually local produced 'medieval'
pottery, the hard grey ware.
Occupation layers in north german towns seem to be unbroken till the 30
years war, starting 1618, with major changes in the towns, the way they were
governed, city defences etc.
I once heard the Medium Aevum was considered the middle part of history,
between the first and second coming of Christ.
The Medieval has been defined on grounds of political organization, medieval
Kings and Emperors as compared with Greek and Roman democracy (the medieval
would be seen as starting around Ceasar), on religious grounds, the age of
the One Christian church, for economic reasons, losing and reestablishing
the connections with the whole Meditteranean, to name just the most
prominent ones.
Technological markers could be the widespread use of glass or of glazed
pottery, economically the use of gold for minting coins comes to my mind as
well. The many guilds and non-cleric brotherhoods could be taken as being
typically medieval, but they start in the 10th c. and were abolished as late
as the 20th c. if they have ended at all.
My impression is, that 'Medieval' is used as a specific term, according to
the subject in question, and as a generalised term, roughly the millenium
between 500 and 1500.
'Renaissance' on the other hand is used for the re-introduction of realistic
representations and the re-connection to the antik knowledge. So there is a
Karolingian renaissance as well as a Weser-Renaissance, one used for a time
the other for a region, the river Weser.
I feel Paul has a point when stating that the terms Renaissance and Medieval
are not used in the same way.
> snip >
>
> and Fred 2 is MY emperor 8-)
There is this story by Goethe, in his Italian travels, where he was told of
the death of Emperor Friedrich. Since he had been sick when Goethe had left
Germany, it was no surprise. Later he learned that the people were talking
about the medieval Fred.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
John A Geck
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:bgsqtg$h1a$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> 'Renaissance' on the other hand is used for the re-introduction of
realistic
> representations and the re-connection to the antik knowledge. So there is
a
> Karolingian renaissance as well as a Weser-Renaissance, one used for a
time
> the other for a region, the river Weser.
>
> I feel Paul has a point when stating that the terms Renaissance and
Medieval
> are not used in the same way.
Hi Uwe,
Well, people also say "Harlem Renaissance," which has nothign to do
with anything. That doesn't change the fact that when it was first used, it
was used to talk specifically about the period following the Middle Ages;
the OED (online, _not_ the 1981 ed, of course) describes the following:
"1. a. The great revival of art and letters, under the influence of
classical models, which began in Italy in the 14th century and continued
during the 15th and 16th; also, the period during which this movement was in
progress.
{1845 FORD Handbk. Spain II. 745 At the bright period of the Renaissance,
when fine art was a necessity and pervaded every relation of life. 1854
LOWELL Keats Prose Wks. 1896 I. 244 In him we have an example of the
renaissance going on almost under our own eyes. 1873 PATER Renaissance 2 The
word Renaissance indeed is now generally used to denote..a whole complex
movement of which that revival of classical antiquity was but one element or
symptom.}"
I am not claiming that we can turn to a dictionary to define scholarly
usage. However, Paul has waffled back and forth between climing that his is
describing either surrent usage or how "Historians from 1850-1950" would
have used it. In the quotaitons provided by the OED, we see that the
earliest views it quite plainly as a period. The second, thankfully enough,
shows it being used in the generic sense.
The Renaissance (at least in English, one of the parameters Paul set in
this discussion) was being used rather frequently to describe a period.
Conversely, we could argue that the Middle Ages is also a process,
essentially.
And I think that Paul would disagree when you say that the
"'Renaissance' on the other hand is used for re-introduction of realistic
representations and the re-connection to the antik knowledge;" this is a
point on which I agree with him. As he said, "There was more to it than the
'rediscovery' of classical knowlege."
Paul wants to defend current usage, but he fails to understand that when
one scholar speaks to another, and uses the terms "medieval" or
"renaissance," it is a combination of context and assumptions of basic
European cultural standards placed within a certain timeline that conveys
understandaing. The terms are, if you will, shorthand.
The most ironic thing is that this is what he has said in the past. I
honestly don't know why every response that he has sent to me has been been
filled with confrontation. I can only assume that he has changed his mind
about the definition that he shared with present-day historians.
Sincerely,
John
erilar
<uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
>
> My impression is, that 'Medieval' is used as a specific term, according
> to
> the subject in question, and as a generalised term, roughly the millenium
> between 500 and 1500.
>
> 'Renaissance' on the other hand is used for the re-introduction of
> realistic
> representations and the re-connection to the antik knowledge. So there is
> a
> Karolingian renaissance as well as a Weser-Renaissance, one used for a
> time
> the other for a region, the river Weser.
>
> I feel Paul has a point when stating that the terms Renaissance and
> Medieval
> are not used in the same way.
I couldn't agree more strongly 8-) Thanks, Uwe.
John A Geck
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
So-
Renaissance = process?
Medieval = period of time?
John
Uwe Müller
"John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:TItYa.74480$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:bgsqtg$h1a$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> > 'Renaissance' on the other hand is used for the re-introduction of
> realistic
> > representations and the re-connection to the antik knowledge. So there
is
> a
> > Karolingian renaissance as well as a Weser-Renaissance, one used for a
> time
> > the other for a region, the river Weser.
> >
> > I feel Paul has a point when stating that the terms Renaissance and
> Medieval
> > are not used in the same way.
>
> Hi Uwe,
>
> Well, people also say "Harlem Renaissance,"
The name is used, and understood, for many more things, I have given two
examples, I have not covered the complete field of usage, did you know the
renaissance of the cocktail bar?
> which has nothign to do
> with anything. That doesn't change the fact that when it was first used,
it
> was used to talk specifically about the period following the Middle Ages;
> the OED (online, _not_ the 1981 ed, of course) describes the following:
> "1. a. The great revival of art and letters, under the influence of
> classical models, which began in Italy in the 14th century and continued
> during the 15th and 16th; also, the period during which this movement was
in
> progress.
> {1845 FORD Handbk. Spain II. 745 At the bright period of the Renaissance,
> when fine art was a necessity and pervaded every relation of life. 1854
> LOWELL Keats Prose Wks. 1896 I. 244 In him we have an example of the
> renaissance going on almost under our own eyes. 1873 PATER Renaissance 2
The
> word Renaissance indeed is now generally used to denote..a whole complex
> movement of which that revival of classical antiquity was but one element
or
> symptom.}"
Well, those have not invented the term. You should have to look into art
history to decide when, by whom and for what purpose the phrase was coined.
It has been used rather frequently since then and has taken on the charater
of a generic word. It is used to describe a revival or rebirth of something
in a time of another predominant worldview.
The Medieval on the other hand has stayed rather unique, compared with, as
an example, Dark Ages.
> I am not claiming that we can turn to a dictionary to define scholarly
> usage.
I don't think we should turn to a dictionary. For the sake of us foreigners,
it would be a well appreciated act of courtesy, to provide an explanation,
if doubst arise, on how a term was used by the person using it. There is no
wrong use of a phrase, it is just a lack of explanation on how it is used.
> Text addressed to Paul Gans snipped, sorry can't answer your questions.>
have fun
Uwe Mueller
erilar
<EChYa.117745$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> I think it's plain that the Germans have their own
> marvelous peculiarties, particularly in Parzival and the Nibelungenlied,
> if
> I recall the summaries I've heard. I think that this holiday I'm
> currently
> on will be the perfect opportunity to find a good English
> translation...anyone know any?
My _Tristan_ and _Nibelungenlied_ are both in German,, but I have an
English _Parzival_. Vintage Books, 1961, which may well have been
superceded. I seem to associate the name Hatto with the Nibelungenlied
paperback. I was a teaching assistant for a course in medieval German
lit in translation, but that was in 1975-76, and my memory is not THAT
good !
> I think it might be more a question of how we today define culture.
> Perhaps
> the word wasn't in vogue in historiographical circles in the 19th
> century,
> but, as you said, it does work.
Terminology has certainly changed since then 8-)
> I think that we could say that
> Charles
> saw himself more as a Restitutor Orbis, not as much inhierting the Roman
> mantle as picking it up and dusting it off?
Yes, we do have the migrations in there, among other events, as Uwe
pointed out.
>
> > > But I do see that Charlemagne up until Frederick
> > II basically encompasses what we would call the Early Middle Ages.
> > Actually, with Fred II included, it goes further than that.
>
> Really, you think so? I always had the impression that the Crusades could
> be
> considered a part more of the HMA. Am I confusing Frederik's?
Perhaps you are. The most famous crusades were over before his
reign. Were you thinking of his grandfather, Barbarossa?
> I wouldn't want to stress this too much, but Italy always does crop up as
> the oddity. Perhaps because of it's proximity to the heart of the
> classical
> world?
That's a possibility. It's also the heart of the Papacy, which might
or not have anything to do with it except that a string of popes kept
undermining the authority of thd emperor. And it was pretty fragmented
once Rome fell apart.
> The whole feudal (using the term unabashedly, in this sense)
> concept
> just seems not to have been as much of an issue in Italy. Certainly, many
> people had lords, and everyone had a cognisance that the Emperor (or the
> Pope) was way up there somewhere, but in the cities, we see a real
> grasping
> to the older ways of things.
I don't know about "older", though, except that "city-states"
existed in ancient Greece, too.
>
> >
> > and Fred 2 is MY emperor 8-)
>
> How do people feel about classifying him as an aethist? This could start
> a
> new thread...
I've read too much of what he had to say himself to accept that. No,
it's papal propaganda put out by power-hungry popes who wanted to rule
both sacred and secular affairs. Now if you want to play with the
investiture controversy, I'll take the anti-papal side.
erilar
> So-
> Renaissance = process?
> Medieval = period of time?
>
Yes, I rather think so.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
John A Geck
> > {1845 FORD Handbk. Spain II. 745 At the bright period of the
Renaissance,
> > when fine art was a necessity and pervaded every relation of life. 1854
> > LOWELL Keats Prose Wks. 1896 I. 244 In him we have an example of the
> > renaissance going on almost under our own eyes. 1873 PATER Renaissance 2
> The
> > word Renaissance indeed is now generally used to denote..a whole complex
> > movement of which that revival of classical antiquity was but one
element
> or
> > symptom.}"
>
> Well, those have not invented the term. You should have to look into art
> history to decide when, by whom and for what purpose the phrase was
coined.
> It has been used rather frequently since then and has taken on the
charater
> of a generic word. It is used to describe a revival or rebirth of
something
> in a time of another predominant worldview.
Two points: first, we had been talking about the use of the term
Medieval and Renaissance in terms of English usage. I am aware that the term
itself was coined much earlier than that. Second, the term Renaissance has
taken on a generic character, but in English at least, it is still used to
denote a period (one rather smaller than the Middle Ages, which is in itself
divded into smaller periods, yes?). My claim is that in the current English
usage of the word, when talking about the waning of the Middle Ages, it
still refers to a (Proper Noun) Era. I would also claim, based only on this
view, that the other uses of the word that you and I have both produced were
coined _after_ the period of the Renaissance, and in a sense, in a subtle
(or not so subtle, in the case of the 12th C Ren.) allusion to that period.
We can level the same claims about medieval. Journalists, scholars, and
laypeople alike will use the term in a myriad of ways in English; similarly
with Dark Ages. All of this points to the fact that the terms are culture
driven, not arbitrary points on a timeline. Samples of the term used outside
of Western Europe earlier in this thread show that the timeline-based
strategy is a flawed one: Medieval Africa, apparently, refers to 1400-1700,
whereas Medieval China refers to 300-900.
> The Medieval on the other hand has stayed rather unique, compared with, as
> an example, Dark Ages.
See above on this; all three terms, in English, are used in both generic and
proper senses. I say all of this without laying value judgements on the
terms themselves.
Thanks, have fun also :)
John
John A Geck
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
> In article
> <EChYa.117745$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
> Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > > > But I do see that Charlemagne up until Frederick
> > > II basically encompasses what we would call the Early Middle Ages.
> > > Actually, with Fred II included, it goes further than that.
> >
> > Really, you think so? I always had the impression that the Crusades
could
> > be
> > considered a part more of the HMA. Am I confusing Frederik's?
> Perhaps you are. The most famous crusades were over before his
> reign. Were you thinking of his grandfather, Barbarossa?
No, I was thinking of Frederick II as involved in Crusades (as was his
grandfather, indeed). So if one thought that the Early Middle Ages ended
around the time of the Crusades, and all that baggage, than certainly this
would be one major difference between German and English
timeline-developing, right?
John
John A Geck
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <8gwYa.75593$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > So-
> > Renaissance = process?
> > Medieval = period of time?
> >
>
> Yes, I rather think so.
>
> --
> Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
I think the problem with that line of thought, all of which is far
off-topic from what I had been talking about with Paul earlier (did he
kill-file me?), is that this can lead to thinking that the Middle Ages,
thus, are not a process in themselves.
See, it supports the argument "There was Rome, then there was not-Rome,
and a lot of stuff happened, but none of it really changed anything, and
then there was the Renaissance, and that gave birth to the Modern World."
Besides presenting the Middle Ages as an unchanging millenium, it also
fails to take into account that there is a _period of time_ in which this
_process_ took place. Same as with the Middle Ages. To say that the
renaissance (small "r") is simply something that can happen at different
periods of time fails to differentitate the differences between these
processes.
And, on a more practical note, it fails to take into account popular
English use of the term, in which the Renaissance (capital "R") is
understood to be a period of time somewhere from the 14th/15th century to
the 16/17th century. That is why there's sites like the ones below:
"Society for Renaissance Studies
The Society for Renaissance Studies was founded in 1967 to provide a forum
for those interested in any aspect of the study of the Renaissance. Through
its meetings and publications the Society provides support for
interdisciplinary teaching and research. Topics covered in talks, articles
and reviews include the history, art, architecture, philosophy, science,
technology, religion, music, the literatures and languages of Europe, and of
the countries in contact with Europe, *during the Renaissance*. "
http://www.sas.ac.uk/srs/default.htm
"Renaissance Studies is a multi-disciplinary journal which publishes
articles and editions of documents on all aspects of Renaissance history and
culture. The articles range over the history, art, architecture, religion,
literature, and languages of Europe *during the period*. "
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/REST/
"The Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS) is a research
centre with a library devoted to the study of the period from approximately
1350 to 1700. The CRRS organizes lectures and seminars, and maintains an
active series of publications."
http://www.crrs.ca/new/
And of course,
http://www.idbsu.edu/courses/hy309/docs/burckhardt/burckhardt.html
erilar
<DgAYa.119512$hOa....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> "erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:erilarloFRY-0465...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> > In article
> > <EChYa.117745$rsJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John A
> > Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > > > > But I do see that Charlemagne up until Frederick
> > > > II basically encompasses what we would call the Early Middle Ages.
> > > > Actually, with Fred II included, it goes further than that.
> > >
> > > Really, you think so? I always had the impression that the Crusades
> could
> > > be
> > > considered a part more of the HMA. Am I confusing Frederik's?
> > Perhaps you are. The most famous crusades were over before his
> > reign. Were you thinking of his grandfather, Barbarossa?
>
> No, I was thinking of Frederick II as involved in Crusades (as was his
> grandfather, indeed). So if one thought that the Early Middle Ages ended
> around the time of the Crusades, and all that baggage, than certainly this
> would be one major difference between German and English
> timeline-developing, right?
>
I was going to crop this, but it doesn't work, so I'll do it in one
chunk.
The early crusades are the "most famous ones" in terms of how much print
they've received since, both factual and fictional. Barbarossa died on
one, of course. Fred's crusade was postponed time and again because he
didn't trust his empire not to fall apart while he was gone. When he DID
go, he NEGOTIATED access to Jerusalem, which infuriated those who
preferred battle and bloodshed and particularly the pope, who had
excommunicated him, refused to back down on that even for a crusader(as
far as I know the only case of a major figure NOT getting off the hook
by going off on a crusade), spread word that Fred was dead, and invaded
his territory(so much for the Peace of God).
Meanwhile, literature was definitely HIGH medieval, at least in Germany.
Tilmann Chladek
> I appreciate your listing of the German timeline of history. One
> fascinating thing that I noticed is that they consider the Roman world to
> procede up until Charlemagne...just amazing!
Well, if you read:
Karl Ferdinand Werner, Naissance de la Noblesse. L'éssor des élites
politiques en Europe, Fayard, « Nouvelles études historiques », Paris,
1998, ISBN 2-213-02148-1
you might find it somewhat less amazing. Karl Ferdinand Werner, by the
way, is German, but he has lived and taught most of his life in France.
--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter bloss erfunden?
Infos dazu ueber <http://home.snafu.de/tilmann.chladek>
John A Geck
"Tilmann Chladek" <tilmann...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:1fzjt4f.mcyrnp1qmfhtuN%tilmann...@snafu.de...
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> [...]
> > I appreciate your listing of the German timeline of history. One
> > fascinating thing that I noticed is that they consider the Roman world
to
> > procede up until Charlemagne...just amazing!
> [...]
>
> Well, if you read:
>
> Karl Ferdinand Werner, Naissance de la Noblesse. L'éssor des élites
> politiques en Europe, Fayard, « Nouvelles études historiques », Paris,
> 1998, ISBN 2-213-02148-1
>
> you might find it somewhat less amazing. Karl Ferdinand Werner, by the
> way, is German, but he has lived and taught most of his life in France.
>
Is this the work that discusses personal power versus public power? I
must confess I don't have it on me at the moment, and EMA isn't really my
thing, but I do think that he makes a cogent point. However, if my
recollection of the main points of the thesis are correct, then we'd have
another division to talk about- beginning sometime in the late Classical
period.
Also, I thought that Werner's points were considered rather a new way of
looking at things. We had been talking about the common and more traditional
forms of division. Since I have entirely no idea about how German schoalrs
would make the division, could you please elaborate?
John