Toto

I must decline your invitation due to time and interest. If you want to spend that much time on this issue, you can advertise in the Formal Debate section.

Antipope Innocent II

Who am I debating? Not you, apparently. And what, exactly, is the topic? And even if you don't have time, perhaps you can at least elaborate a little on these "slips and glitches". What are you talking about?

Toto

What are you talking about? Are you trying to pretend that the Church never interfered with scientific research for political reasons? You think that Galileo's case had nothing to do with imposing ideology on science? That the church has always been open to free thinking and scientific research, wherever the results might lead? That church moneys were spent on technical advances, and not theology?

If you want to claim that Christians saved a certain amount of pagan science, they did, but they lost a lot. They spent their time copying hymnals and the letters of Jerome instead of ancient scientists. The net effect may still be positive, but it wasn't all sweetness and light.

Antipope Innocent II

Can you give me an example from the Medieval Church? The later Church of the Counter Reformation was another kettle of fish.

See above.

It was spent on both. Have a look at who was at the forefront of the adoption of more effcient agrarian technologies in the Middle Ages, for example. Or water power. Or who invented mechanical clocks. Or eye glasses.

On the other hand, can you give me an example of the Medieval Church stifling technology?

Deliberately? Think carefully before answering.

In fact, think carefully about whether you really want to be having this discussion at all.

Jeffrey Gibson

The author not only writes poorly. He/she has not done much research in the area he/she writes on, and he /she is apparently unaware of the limitations of the authority he/she appeals to.

Gordon's book was not very well received by historians of medicine, as these quotes from reviews that appeared in The Quarterly Review of Biology, 35 (1960), Renaissance News 13 (1960), and Speculum, 35, (1960) which emphasize the very points Antipope has been noting.

It is difficult to review this book adequately in a Limited space, Suffice it to say that had it been reviewed in manuscript by experts in the history of
medieval and renaissance medicine, it would have either been coinpletely rewritten to reflect the findings of modern scholarship in this field, or better
yet, it might never have been published. Since the book, unhappily, is now in print, it is the duty of this reviewer to warn prospective readers to use it
with critical caution. It is poorly organized, the transliteration of Arabic names does not appear to follow any recognized scheine such as that of Sarton
or of the Royal Asiatic Society, and the text abounds in examples of either sloppy proofreading or downright erroneous spelling, e.g., Loeuwenhoek for Leeuwenhoek, Santrio Santro for Santorius Santorius . . ., ad nauseam. Many footnotes are missquotations or are erroneous in their references to pages and dates.

On p. 788, the author quotes Sarton as saying in his Introduction to the History of Science, Vol. 1, p. 274, 1927, that "Ptolemy's Optics is the most remarkable experimental research in history." What Sarton actually wrote was: "the most remarkable experimental research of antiquity".

Benjamin Lee Gordon. Medieval and Renaissance Medicine. New
York: Philosophical Library, 1959.xii+843 pp. 68 illus. $10.
The writing of medical history is, by its very nature, full of pitfalls. It requires both historical understanding and a knowledge of medical practices and techniques. Dr. Gordon is much better qualified on the medical background than he is on the historical commentary. This is especially evident in the medieval section of the work where he puts forth ideas and concepts about medieval history which were discarded at the turn of the century, if not earlier. As he approaches the Renaissance period he is less prone to make wide-range historical generalizations, and his research is slightly more up to date.

Dr. Gordon is a physician and surgeon with a deep and abiding interest in the history of his own profession. He has apparently read widely and indiscriminately in the historical field, but he has not really researched his work as an historian would, not even in discussions on medical matters. For the most part he rarely cites and apparently has rarely consulted any work or article published since 1940, and ignores many important ones published earlier.His orientation has been through medicine and not through history and so he ignores entirely the work of men like Lorcn C. MacKilllley and Paul Oskar Kristcllcr who have made, in my. opinion, important contributions to the study of medicine in the period.

BENJAMINLEE GORDONM, Medieval and Renaissance Medicine. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. Pp. xii, 843; 68 plates.
REVIEWERS, often justifiably, are accused of failure to judge a book according
to the author's stated aims. Dr Gordon's "determined effort" is "to place emphasis on important facts;" the jacket blurb praises him for "offering for the
first time a thoroughly documented work on one of the great blind spots in
medical history . . . the medieval period." If these be taken as three basic aims, the book falls somewhat short of expectations. Apropos of the "blind-spot" aim, the mediaeval period may be a blind spot in some readers' eyes, but members of the American Association of the History of Medicine hear about it at every annual meeting, and it is featured often, sometimes with lavish color illustrations, in trade publications such as Ciba, Symposizcm, What's New, M.D., etc. Ten years ago I referred to it as a "historiographical Cinderella" that had "come into its own."' Furthermore Dr Gordon himself cites mediaeval data from serious modern works by Baas, Castiglioni, Fort, Friedenwald, Garrison, Haeser, Major, Meyerhof, Neuburger, Payne, Riesman, Sarton, Singer, Steinschneider, Thorndike, Withington, etc.

These citations would seem at first sight to justify the claim to being a "first"
in "thorough documentation." But the adjective "thorough" is not accurate.
There is a large quantity of documentation (over fifty pages of footnotes), but it is neither thorough nor always dependable. Citations are repeated often unnecessarily and in extenso, but with authors' names frequently misspelled and titles mishandled. An extreme example is the unintelligible "Giasca 1901" (p. 765), apparently meant for Giacosa, Magistri Salernitani nondum editi (Turin, 1901). Unmentioned are recent reliable works by eminent authorities such as Sigerist, Corner, Crombie, Icristeller, Mullet, etc. . Apparently as a result of the author's lack of thoroughness in keeping abreast of current writings, he perpetuates many traditional misconceptions. For example, Salerno was the "first" Western university (Kristeller and others have reduced this to legend); the actual use of the soporific sponge (questioned by modern experts) is accepted, with inaccurate dating; "the first public lecture on anatomy" north of the Alps is dated 1404 in Vienna (Nondeville is known to have delivered one at Montpellier in 1304); Roland's "murderous' looking" herniotomy, with a "female assistant" at hand, is lauded as a first (herniotomy was described by earlier writers, and the miniature cited shows a male assistant). And so on, throughout the book.

Of the three above-mentioned aims of the author, we turn now to the first,
"emphasis on important points." On this our reactions are both favorable and
unfavorable. Informative and interestingly presented are the discussions of diseases and cures. Here the author speaks with the expert knowledge of a surgeon; he also is generous with long quotes from contemporary sources. This is a happy combination and contributes much to the value of the book. On the other hand, the lengthy biographies (often with repetition of data) are tiresome reading.

Less boresome, and also less defensible in a history of medicine, are the-many
sections and chapters on non-medical topics such as alchemy, spectacles, scholasticism, universities, brothels, and crusades (a luridly dramatic account that is very interesting and also inaccurate). Most of these non-medical sections are weighted with the derogatory judgments of early modern writers concerning mediaevalism; its "continuous wars," "intellectual stagnation," scholastics arguing concerning the number of angels per pin-point, etc.

Almost every page contains judgments that mediaevalists of our day reject; the high moral principles of the Arabs which made them "hate the lewdness of classical mythology;" printing "actually brought to Europe by Arabian navigators" from its original home in China; Neo-Platonic philosophy as a Western "adaptation of the teachings of Averroes;" the sciences after "following the conquering armies of the Arabs . . . crystallized in the School of Salerno." The chapter on spectacles perpetuates the traditional overrating of Roger Bacon as "the first great experimental philosopher," and fails to cite Edward Rosen's searching survey of "The Invention of Eyeglasses." Firsts, with which Dr Gordon is too generous (often several perpage), lose their force when distributed uncritically. More acceptable than the non-medical digressions, is the large amount of space given to ancient medical
forerunners of mediaeval practicioners. Hippocrates and Galen occupy the stage often and at length; as also do modern successors of Renaissance medical men.

These pre- and post-ludes are presented at the expense of mediaeval-renaissance personages. For example, a chapter on "Malaria during the Middle Ages" devotes six pages to the ancients, two to the moderns, leaving two to the Middle Ages and Renaissance. We estimate that about half of the book is occupied by accounts of medical precursors and successors and non-medical topics. On the whole the book is an interestingly written omnibus comprising mediaeval and Renaissance medicine plus related factors in ancient and modern medicine plus more or less unrelated factors of mediaeval and Renaissance civilization. Its failings are those inherent in histories of medicine; if the author is a professional historian, the failings are in medical factors; if he is a professional medical man, they are in historiography. Dr Gordon's book illustrates what Dr Claudius Mayer once pointed out concerning medical men who undertake medical history. The book is better medically than historically. Professional physicians and the average lay reader will enjoy its attractively dramatic style and medical expertness. They should be warned against its overly glittering and overly dark generalizations, and against the many inaccuracies in the citations

Can you tell me please, Magdlyn: Is the bulk of your research on what's what with regard to the Medieval church and Christian belief carried out on the internet? It certainly seems so.

Have you had any formal training in the fields you comment/pronounce upon?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Did you get an answer to that question Jeffrey
about whether we have any ancient historians
writing in the time of Constantine other than
"Ecclesiastical Historians"?

Jeffrey Gibson

What has this to do with the issue under discussion?

JG

mountainman

It was clear enough for others here about the
chronology. You seem to have an agenda
outside antiquity. What is it?



Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

I told you I do not want to have this discussion. It is entirely off topic for this thread; I don't have the time or the inclination to research the area; it is not important enough to me; and your style is rather off putting. That's why I suggested you advertise for a sparring partner in the Formal Debates section.

Yes, it is clear that the medieval church preserved and developed a lot of technology, and it is probable that any losses were due to accident rather than suppression. Carrier said as much. But the topic of this thread is Early Christians, with the emphasis on Early, and you have not said anything in their favor.

Antipope Innocent II

Well excuse me for knowing what I'm talking about.

I and a couple of others had several on the recent "Medieval Flat Earth" and "How Dark Were the Dark Ages Threads". After theire feebel performances there, I doubt they'd volunteer for a second drubbing.
Precisely.

My only interest is in history. Why would I say anything in their "favour" if it's not supported by the evidence?