Johann_Kaspar

Sorry, I need quotes. You failed to answer. You point is nor proven.Please give the quotes.

countjulian

"I'll check out MacMullen but I've already looked up both the cites to sources you said he gave and they relate to Porphryr and a Christian heretic called Arius. If that is all he's got then he is exaggerating a bit. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature says (p. 535, New ed.) "There is no reason to believe that the early Christians in the Greek half of the Roman Empire set about the systematic destruction of pagan classical literature." I think your quote from the OGCW just refers to what was copied (although it's standard Po-Mo to state your sources have been selected whether you've got evidence for it or not)."

Oh, he cites more than just that. Let me give you everything: MacMullen (1984) 125 n.15 & p. 164 n. 49, CJ 1.1.3.1 (a. 448), Constantelos 1964 (375), Vita S. Symeon Iun. 161, Ven (1962-70) 1 p.144, Malal 18f. p.491 Dindorf and Michael Syr., Chron. 933 from Chabot (1899-1910) 2.271 . The last cites thousand of books in Asia. Remember, whenver they destroyed a temple (which they did alot of) they destroyed books, too. I specifically said the destruction wasn't, nay couldn't have been systemic, because the monastaries were spread out and out of contact with one and other. Read my post again. What happened was the science got rubbed out to make way for the Bible, and we owe most of our classical scientists to the Muslims, not the monks. I'm going to go out and get the dictionary, so have no fear young padowan.

Johann_Kaspar

Don't you know about the relations between Huguenots and Catholic around that time? Why you do not tell us who were Descartes parents?
French court , not French church.
I never did any such speculation. Your prejudice.
Yeaaaahhhhhhhhh! Quite right. Why he did not publish it at all. Please....!!!!!!
Did I say this? Please, quote!
Not only dyslexic! I am admiring your deductive skills. I am also stupid, ugly, and much more. Next time answer one post with another post and not inside a reply to spin or anybody else. I was thinking it is basic... but I am stupid so...
And I have no time to lose reading your answers to spin. It is garbage imo.
But spin answers are funny. He is making a lot of fun of yourself. Sorry. I write what I think.

But please do not forget to tell us all why Descartes did not publish his Traité du Monde... nor in Holland, nor in France, nor anywhere else. We are waiting with much interest!

Bede

countjulian,

Thank you very much for the references. It will take me a while to get through them all but I will respond when I do, maybe on the blog if this thread has passed on.

Best wishes

Bede

sorompio

Isn't your comparison preposterous and improcedent, to say the least?

He 'chose'? What's the difference for the argument? No freedom of speech was allowed on behalf of the Christian Churches, so scientists were forced to autocensor their own works and thoughts.

Lafcadio

My point is not proven because you have no idea of what I'm talking about. So instead of sending me to dig through Cusanus to find adequate quotes to match your googled quote or to make a brief of pantheistic philosophies why don't you go and do your reading? I'm not your paid librarian to do the documenting for you. I gave you hints, not proofs. Listen to them and you'll improve your knowledge. Don't listen to them and I don't care.

Just for decency you could consult a brief of pantheism or Cusanus to see what are they about. Failing to do so, you just excluded yourself from the conversation.

What is the point of this? We were talking whether it was relatively easy or hard to do science in France before Voltaire, and particularily we talk about my examples. As long as I don't understand the relevance I won't be your answering machine. Please make me understand your line of argumentation and all the knowledge I have I will gladly submit to support it or counter it.

And? Were his efforts recognized in France, before Voltaire (even more, during his lifetime)? Yes they were.

I never claimed you did. I just questioned a possible hypothesis for his departure in Netherlands as it was asked "why had he left?"

I don't understand the "blue color" argument. Nor whether you ask me something or you claim something. Nor what's your point.

I must apologize for this. It was not you, but sorompio . You interfered in my discussion with him with the line "Thank you, thank you very much for mentioning Descartes!" while he replied no more so I took you and him as the same opponent. So you can replace in that quote "sorompio said that in France ...". The meaning is the same. My examples were to put a nuance in sorompio's claims. Opposing my arguments to him will give you his burden of proof.

I didn't say you are, just hoping you are not.

Since you insinuated I avoided to answer, I imagined you have reading problems.

These I cannot know, nor did I insinuate such a thing. But if you're ready to make a confession this is not the time and here's not the place.

Oh, so you're spin's "baiseculist"? Please don't spare your tongue!

It was already said in this thread. Pity you missed it. Again I hope it's not a dyslexia.
Does violet help you in reading? Certainly it doesn't help me and if you want me to pay attention to something you say, coloring it is not the solution. On the contrary, you'll be very soon ignored if you continue that way. Your choice.

Lafcadio

I don't find it so. So no. Why?
In the middle of that quote I said "every age has its censorship". I think this explains it all about my comparision.

I agree but this was not the point. You could publish and endanger yourself or not publish and be safe. That's a choice to make.
My argument was the unlike Galileo Descartes made a different choice. What's wrong in this claim?
It was not even a con for the argument just above, more like a completion.

Roger Pearse

This thread has rather sprawled, hasn't it? But part of it has also wandered into an area in which I'm interested as an amateur: the transmission of texts from antiquity to our own times. I'm not sure I agree entirely with either side on this. May I add a comment or two?

I've tried to condense down the quotations!

There are two issues here.

1. Were pagan texts palimpsested in preference to Christian ones? Both are in fact found in palimpsests. However once pagan society had collapsed, inevitably its literature was of little use to the survivors. It seems to me that the accusation of a deliberate policy, as opposed to natural process, needs some kind of evidence.

2. The alleged targetting of Celsus and Porphyry is a *separate* issue -- texts destroyed because of content. But there is no evidence anyone after Origen ever read Celsus, so this cannot be quoted. Porphyry's works were preserved by the Byzantines, apart from his libel against the Christians. This was ordered destroyed by Constantine in 325 -- the only pagan work so specified -- and again by Theodosius II in 448. But there is no evidence either edict was ever enforced. If you read the introduction to the English translation of the Theodosian Code, the impotence of late emperors is illustrated by portions of that code. I think that Porphyry's work is lost because it insulted the only people in a position to transmit it to the future, and because it was embarassing and silly even to his admirers, not because of any documented state action.

Macmullen's citation of De viris illustribus 113 is curious, since the text does not discuss this as far as I can see. Here is the English translation:

"Euzoius, as a young man, together with Gregory, bishop of Nazianzan, was educated by Thespesius the rhetorician at Caesarea, and afterwards when bishop of the same city, with great pains attempted to restore the library, collected by Origen and Pamphilus, which had already suffered injury. At last, in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, he was expelled from the church. Many and various treatises of his, are in circulation, and one may easily become acquainted with them."

Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book I, chapter 9 is also online.

This refers to the edict of Constantine -- not "Christians burning manuscripts in the city centre" -- which reads:

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and people.-Since Arius has imitated wicked and impious persons, it is just that he should undergo the like ignominy. Wherefore as Porphyry,72 that enemy of piety, for having composed licentious treatises against religion, found a suitable recompense, and such as thenceforth branded him with infamy, overwhelming him with deserved reproach, his impious writings also having been destroyed; so now it seems fit both that Arius and such as hold his sentiments should be denominated Porphyrians, that they may take their appellation from those whose conduct they have imitated. And in addition to this, if any treatise composed by Arius should be discovered, let it be consigned to the flames, in order that not only his depraved doctrine may be suppressed, but also that no memorial of him may be by any means left. This therefore I decree, that if any one shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, and shall not instantly being it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death; for immediately after conviction the criminal shall suffer capital punishment. May God preserve you!

Yet as we know, Porphyry's book remained in free circulation and as for Arius, he was rehabilitated a few years later. Late imperial edicts are no guide to what happened.

I do not think this is correct. On what ancient evidence is this based? Books were ordered to be destroyed after councils -- usually heretics newly condemned. But how much happened? The ancient world was a loose-knit one, and while the intention was there (our own society is destroying books which are 'racist'!) the means were not. In the manuscript era any reader could be a writer.

No indeed. The education system of the Eastern Roman empire remained classical until 1453, so the idea is ridiculous. Photius in the 9th century is able to read a wide range of heretical and pagan literature -- and condemn it -- which has not reached us. But this is not because of church action -- surely an anachronistic reflection of the Spanish Inquisition in the age of printing? It's because Constantinople was sacked in 1204 by the renegade army originally hired for the fourth crusade.

Handbooks of technology of course would be preserved. These do not seem to me to bear on the argument either way. After all, Christians were also part of the ancient world, and its technical literature was theirs.

What is more significant is the works of Julian the Apostate were largely preserved, because of their style -- again excepting the one written specifically to insult them! -- and indeed letters composed in his name.

This seems to me merely an exaggeration based on Constantine's edict above.

Justus certainly existed in the 9th century, since Photius reviewed it, so its loss is definitely not due to church action. Loss of texts was inevitable once the society that produced them had ceased to exist. The newer society would copy what it found useful. Remember that even works of St. Augustine are lost!

I am unclear as to the point of this. Moslem society obtained its texts from Christian Syriac scholars such as Hunain Ibn Ishak, who translated from Greek into Syriac, and from Syriac into Arabic. The Latin west lost access to almost all Greek literature, secular or Christian, because of the collapse of Roman society. The conquest of Spain gave them access to texts which had gone the long way round.

It seems hard to blame the Christians for the collapse of the Roman society. The monasteries etc are responsible for the preservation of all ancient literature in the West, and had they never existed, none of it would have survived.

Few know this -- congratulations. Some 7th century texts are not written but drawn, as the monks were illiterate. But the rule of St. Benedict said there should be books, so books there would be.

Yes, although we can't quite predict this sort of thing. For instance Tertullian's heretical works survive, because they really slam immoral bishops. Carolingian monks, often on bad terms with their secularised bishops, did not necessarily object to this!

I don't know about you, but I really loathe abbreviated 'references'! CJ must be the Theodosian Codex, or the Codex Justinianus. (MacMullen and Constantelos are modern works, so don't count). Vita S. Symeon the Younger. -- John Malalas -- Michael the Syrian, in Chabot's French translation.

I don't have access to most of these. But I have already commented on the use of late imperial legal codes as evidence for what really happened -- they aren't, except in an indirect way.

Michael the Syrian is writing in the 12th century. I don't know what he says, but I don't see how it can be very useful evidence, except about events later than antiquity.

How do we know this? Is this merely an extension of the destruction of the Serapeum (which did have a library) in 396?

To sum up: it is very unsafe to presume that people in antiquity or the middle ages spent a lot of time tracking down books to destroy them. It was an almost impossible task in the manuscript era to do this, which is why the process really waits for the Spanish Inquisition and the era of printing. In an illiterate age, such as that which followed the Roman collapse, did anyone even need to bother? The loss of 99% of ancient literature is due to social, not religious factors, and the collapse of the society that gave it birth. Even the codex Theodosianus bears witness to this -- in 450, the compiler complains that the earlier legal hand books of Gaius and Papinian were no longer extant in full.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chaupoline

Judaism was practiced only by the Jews. Chrisitanity's message that everyone could be saved was adopted by the Roman Empire. It was the Christian churches that saved all the knowledge of the Anicent World from disappearing during the Dark Ages. Western Civilization arose because of the Greeks, Romans and Christians. Genghis Khan's conquest improved trade of materials and information between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

If Christianity had not arose Western Civilzation would not have developed as it has and we may not be as developed as we are now.

countjulian

Quote:
If he challanged why do you say he didn't contribute? Regiomontanus actually criticised Almagest (Epytoma in almagesti Ptolemei). One cause of the Copernican revolution is not some kind of revelation but the waves of critiques against Ptolemeic cosmos. Nobody changes a thing which works.
He might be mainly known for creating horoscopes by people interested in that. Copernicus actually used Regiomontanus' works and observations.
Sorry, my post was probably a little hard to understand without the “n� in “end.�

All though Oresme seemed like he wanted to criticize Ptolemy, in the end he agreed with him, very much due to pressure from the university to conform to the idolization of Ptolemy. Yes, people before Copernicus had noticed some disturbing anomalies in the observations while working with in the Ptolemaic paradigm, no one before Copernicus had challenged his main thesis, that the sun revolved around the earth. That is what made Copernicus so special, and so vilified. As for the horoscopes thing, I was trying to accent the generally unscientific nature of the age, in which actual astronomy (and medicine!) took backseat to astrology. As Carl Sagan said, one can find a horoscope in most any newspaper today, but what about and astronomy section?

Quote:
Not quite. By 8th century most traces of Roman life were wiped out. Southern France and Spain (the influence of Visigothic kingdom) preserved best the Roman traits (until the Arabic invasion). Italy has his post-Roman glory under the Ostrogoths of Theoderic I (which was one of the few barbaric kings who was actually a mecena and regarded classical education and culture with admiration). Between the Italy of Theodoric and the Italy of Renaissance there's absolutely no connection, in case this was the image that suggested the above claims.

While most of the technical traces, concrete, running water, glass, etc. were gone, there were still many people, in Rome and else where, who were descended from true Roman citizens, and the Germanics and others themselves wanted to be Roman. My point was that science still could have gone on, in Christendom, since there were still cities, not just barbarian huts, left throughout Christendom.

Quote:
"Carolingian Renaissance" is but not that overrated as your quotes insinuate. We can have a parenthesis about it as it regards the topic.

Not quite sure what you’re saying. Care to clarify?

Quote:
There's still to be proven that Christianity backwarded science and not the waves of uneducated Germanics with little regard to Classical values. There are a lot of "dark ages" in the history of mankind and Christianity wasn't there to provoke them. If you think this time it's Christianity's fault, please show. But then you might want to explain the disregard of classical culture in many early Germanic kingdoms or the total destruction of Romanity in Britain under the waves of Saxons, Jutes and Angles which plunged the island in two century of darkness. And not that these guys bear all the blame. Roman's world started to decay since 2nd or 3rd century (depends what factors you consider important). Beside the religious factors which I suspect you may want to discuss to support your view, there're many others. If you want to find out what Classical culture dissappeared we may try to, but I have a feeling that such a discussion will not focus on Christianity.

B borrowed a copper kettle from A. After he returned it, A sued him because the kettle now had a big hole in it. At trial B's his defense was:

First, I never borrowed a kettle,
Second, the kettle had a hole in it already and
Third, I gave the kettle back undamaged.

This is called kettle logic (thanks Freud) after Feud’s little story. Your arguments contradict each other, revealing an agenda. The whole thesis of your guys’ argument so far has been that the middle ages were not that bad. Now, you’re leaning towards the direction that it was all the barbarians’ fault, and Christianity had nothing to do with it. Well, for one thing, the barbarians that invaded the empire, such as the Vandals and the Goths, were Christian converts anyway. And for another, no one is trying to say that is was all Christianity’s fault. Sure, Christianity exacerbated the situation and kept it going longer than it had to, but certainly there were other factors. If you ask me, I think it all started not in the 3rd or even 2cn century, but was back, in the last century before the Common Era. In my humble opinion, the decline and everything started when Julius Caesar was “elected� consul of the Empire by the army, because now, it wasn’t the people, nor the landowners, nor even a small plutocracy of aristocratic families that was controlling who ruled, but the army. All though old Caesar himself was a nice enough guy, the precedent he started was, IMHO, the beginning of the end for Rome. But back to what we are talking about, the overriding control the church wanted over secular affairs, its waste of human resources on persecutions of pagans, Jews, and heretics as well as the vast amount of clergy, its prudery about the human body, and its hostility to the traditional Greek empirical tradition, contributed mightily to the fall of Rome and science in the West.

Quote:
It was not universally considered and not for a millenium as you insinuate. There're plenty of accounts of bathing and even regular bathing (for the latter I'm thinking of details from aristocracy's or king's life) which show the reality was not that dark.

If you look at it, the farther away you go from antiquity, the more hostile people and the church got to it. this is because the church was farther and farther away from the days when bathing was common, and so getting rid of it became progessivly easier. From the start, people of lower classes got the boot on bathes, and bathing was relegated to an occasional recreational occurrence instead of the daily regime it should have been. This had much to do both with the destruction of plumbing and running water and Christianity’s hostility to getting butt naked for anything but baptism.

Quote:
One reason for "downs" is the primitive medicine connecting various diseases with water (most of the times unfounded, I say most of the times because I'm thinking of diseases like the more-recent in Europe, cholera).
Another reason is the low life standard of the population. There are "downs" in hygiene which go together with "downs" in alimentation.

The water born disease you speak of would not have been a problem if people had not been excreting and bathing in the same sources of water, the Thames being a perfect example of this. And the decline of science had much to do with the loss of Greek medical traditions until they were re-introduce by the Muslims as well as Christianity’s message that the body was not important and its idolization of those that mistreated their bodies and not bathing (exampli gratia –isn’t Latin fun?- monks and ascetics like Anthony).

Quote:
I was refering to pre-Renaissant accounts. Like public baths during 1200s. Were they that unpopular that during 13th century in Paris there's a guild of public bath owners? Were they that unpopular as some decrees from the same century forbade public bath owners to keep whores?

Unless being compared with whorehouses makes you popular, yes, they were unpopular. Many times people went there not so much for the bathing as for a little sucky sucky. And they were only available to the wealthy.
Quote:
You have a long way to prove this was a general view. And keep in mind we're talking of somehow rich people from urban life. Bathing in a river is an aspect we can't talk about due to lack of evidences.
This was rarely done, because of the taboo on nekedness, especially in public. And remember they were also relieving themselves in that same river.
Quote:
Public baths, yes, you needed some cash to afford. But a wooden barrel at home was not (always) a luxury.
Are you kidding? Most serfs spent their days working tirelessly for the lord, and the rest of their time was spent on their knees in front of the local parish priest (the boys, anyway). Most peasants couldn’t even afford beds to sleep on. As the person(s) who wrote Arabian Nights relates most Christians believed that after bathing in Christ they need never bathe again.

Quote:
Church fathers also didn't agree with prostitution or murder. We talk about medieval realities not what Church fathers said. . Starting from the above quote one must prove that most people listened to it to make a point. I doubt the average peasant or blacksmith was reading or listening the words of Jerome

A common fallacy of anti-intellectuals. Although few may have read Jerome, he was vastly influential, and through what I like to call the “intellectual trickledown�, even those who had not read his works would be influenced by his precepts and ideas. Case in point: although few today have read the works of Aristotle, the Western mind in general today is very Aristotelian thanks to his canonization by Thomas Aquinas (another man few have read) and others. And what was your point on prostitution and murder? These were already things that were looked down on in Roman society, to say the least (has there very been a society that has condoned “murder� in the sense of going along and randomly killing people?).

Quote:
www.jesusneverexisted.com is a joke of a site. I already gave few hints why.

I tend to disagree, but I shall refrain from citing it.

Quote:
I disagree with both. Can you leave both behind?

Sure. Why not?