> We had a digression into book burning which occurred earlier than this > period, which he implied he didn't believe happened and
No, I had believed you were trying to suggest the Church was doing this AFTER the collapse of Roman authority in the West. > citations but then seemed to say "Oh, those books which the State or > Church needed to burn." Maybe I should use his real words "Of course > such works would be suppressed." Of course they would be supressed because they were matters of liturgy that were opposed to what the leadership of the time thought was "right." The stakes, in their minds, was not matters of philosophical disagreement, but of heaven and hell. > Saturday he seems to write that a period of nearly four hundred years > is too short a time for a "lively literary and scholarly environment" > to develop under Islam in Spain but the two - three hundred years of > Catholicism must have been the roots of it. ??? Perhaps I am > misinterpreting something there. I'd better quote that: Yes, you are misinterpreting. What I was pointing out is that the scholarly liveliness of the Medieval Muslim world could only be based on the material it recovered from the old Roman areas, areas that were now Christian. They recovered such materials and reintroduced them into Europe at a later date. > I would say this argument is not only contradictory but Nothing contradictory about it if you consider where these materials came from. > To continue then, now that I had earlier agreed with him about there > not being a Dark Ages, Damon writes "that Europe was too busy trying > to survive to develop a lively literary or scholarly movement during > this period (specifically the so-called Dark Ages)." ??? Just because there was no lively intellectual development during this period does not automatically make it a dark age. There WAS literary and scholarly development during this period, but not on the same level as before or after. But there were other things going on too, the aformentioned fusion of Classical, Germanic, and Judeo-christian mentalities. It was a time of ferment and development, and a time of struggle. But it was not "dark" either. > Maybe I should just let Damon argue with himself. Hardly. > So I believe he is arguing here that because Augustine believes that > not all "pagan learning" should be destroyed but only that which the > Church finds unable to tolerate or use the Church is promoting > learning during this time. ??? No, what I'm saying is that the influence of Augustine's and others writing caused a fundamental shift in attitudes towards classical learning. I certainly do see a break here in mentalities. > I'll answer a minor point raised - I was redefining a Renaissance to > agree with Damon about the 12th century rise in scholarship. Damon is > free with the term Renaissance, citing several of them, for one who > doesn't believe in them but stresses the continuity of, what he > doesn't define, I'll call 'whatever'. I was quoting from sources for one. I was also illustrating that the so-called Rennaisance of the 16th C was not the first, further illustrating my belief in a continuity of interest in Classical Learning. > Damon has objected more than once that the Church was engaged in a > struggle to survive I never objected to that. You are misrepresenting what I said. indicates he > acknowledges it was suppressing liturgy and laws it disagreed with. Which is not the same as supressing classical learning either. > Richard also noted the strange way Damon stresses continuity and then > starts tossing around collapses, and I would add Renaissances. Again, quoting from sources. Would you rather I not take direct quotes? See my point above. Damon. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
