Roger Pearse

You know, I expect, that Bishop Synesius of Cyrene was a close friend of Hypatia?

What she did was to get involved in Alexandrian politics, and stir up the anger of the Alexandrian mob. That was something that even Ptolemaic kings feared to do, and she was murdered in the street. I am not aware of any exodus of philosophers afterwards; but she was trying to create a pagan political party with Jewish support, and no doubt her supporters did find it expedient to leave afterwards.

The best account of all the events in question is found in the Chronicle of John of Nikiu, which I have online at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers.

The patriarch of Alexandria at that time, Theophilus, seems to have been a wicked man, little more than a mob boss, and he played an evil role in intriguing against St. John Chrysostom (see Palladius, Life of John Chrysostom at the same url), hoodwinking the elderly heresy-fighter St. Epiphanius of Salamis to attend his kangaroo Synod Of The Oak (although E. came to realise that he was being used as a catspaw, and sailed home before the synod concluded). His role in the Origenist disputes was also sinister; initially an Origenist, as most were, he changed sides and initiated a persecution of the Origenist monks in the Nitrian desert.

All that said, our view of him is shaped by Gibbon, and it is possible that we have only one side of the story.

Certainly the Arabs got the works of Aristotle from the Syriac-speaking Christians. Since Aristotle had died almost a millenium earlier, this was inevitable. There was still paganism in the 6th century, of some form, and some of us have been discussing whether the inhabitants of Harran were still pagans in the 9th century.

Surely there is room for both; for the one who wrote imperishably things that men would not willingly let die, and those who extended his ideas, and built upon them, and to whom we are indebted for transmitting them to us?

But I don't think that we are aspersing Aristotle. The argument is merely that the Christian era that followed, far from disparaging Greek science, preserved it. It also freed it from some of the superstition that was an instrinsic part of Greek philosophy, since the Christians did not share those beliefs and so concentrated on the scientific ones.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

Terry Jones in Barbarian gives a very impressive exposition of what the Greeks achieved and comments that the Romans basically slowed things down - what we assume are Roman developments are not - including killing Archimedes.

Wads4

--and this is a good excuse for destroying valuable (pagan ) works?--because parchment was scarce and expensive?
Three points: why was parchment so scarce? Could it be because of the Christian disregard for things of this world, including the manufacure of papyrus, and their view that Christian eschatology was of greater importance than pagan science, culture and philosophy?
And--if these Christians were so educated, informed and concerned to preserve classical literature, how come that they did not recognise their worth at the time when they were so busy vandalising them?
And--where do the Arabs fit into all this? I thought it was they who kick -started an early renaissance in Europe by themselves (as "pagan" Muslims), preserving Aristotelian texts (whether original or pagan or Christian copies), and introducing them to the West via Aquinas. Apart from the Neo-platonism which the Church preserved for its own ends we don't hear much about many other writers having been preserved and protected by Christians during the Dark ages. Where were the cultural evenings in Monasteries in which the Monks freely discussed science and non-Christian philosophy, eg Epicurus, or staged the plays of Aristophanes, Sophocles, Euripides et al?

Roger Pearse

Yep. And why were they valuable? In an age where society had collapsed, and people were starving, what's some rubbishy old classical text? (They have no way to know that it is the last copy in the world, after all). Let's put ourselves in the minds of the people at the time. This is why it's called the Dark Ages.

Because you need a lot of sheep to make a book. First catch your sheep.

This is all a bit odd, and not right.

Papyrus continued to be used in Egypt. But the climate change in late antiquity gradually destroyed the sub-tropical conditions in the Nile that provided the habitat. These days papyrus grows naturally only far to the south.

Because they had vandals kicking in the doors at the time.

From behind, with scimitars, when no-one is looking, ca. 636 AD.

This being several centuries later, of course.

Are we discussing the Latin West or the Greek East? If the former, the knowledge of Greek vanished in the Dark Ages. "Nasty, brutish and short" is not a firm of attorneys but a famous description of life in the Dark Ages.

If you refer to the Greek East, these formed part of the school curriculum. That's how we have them. You can take a look at the Bibliotheca of Photius (9th century) at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers, if you want some idea of how a cultured East Roman dignitary looked at these things at that time. The emperor and his court were still speaking Attic in 1453, you know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Wads4

Is this so surprising? Was it perhaps because by the time Christians had done with suppressing most pagan classical civilisation, they were the only show left in town, and could therefore claim to be the inheritors of Graeco-Roman(pagan) culture,- and take all the credit for themselves?
Or do you have another explanation?--was it because the Christians were given power over the Roman Empire by God, and were therefore divinely guided in all their enterprises? If not,--then you have to concede that they were merely the winners in an ungodly scramble for power, having conned their way into Roman politics and taken over the State. Who was it who built the roads, schools, villas, baths and aqueducts in Europe--pagan Romans. Which God was worshipped at Aquae Sulis in Somerset, U.K.?-- Sulis Minerva, not Jesus. I am not saying Christians did nothing,--they produced some pretty illuminated Bibles, built some Churches and cathedrals at enormous expense in tithes and taxes, (from which the poor might better have benefited),--and forceably "converted" pagans through the tender Christian administrations of the likes of Charlemagne and Boniface, and "encouraged" the Cathars of France to mend their heretical ways. These Christians were just greedy rapacious men, like other greedy rapacious men,--and I do not see why we have to hold them in especial esteem.

Malachi151

And this IS the problem. This is like saying that if someone bakes 10 pies, and I go in an destroy 7 of them, that I should be credited with preserving 3!

Now, let's be more specific.

What exactly is on the table?

We have the "pagan" (pre-Christian) philosophy, science, culture, institutions (democracy, repulicanism, universities, hospitals, etc.).

We have the "barbarians" (most of whom WERE Christians, and some of the non-Christians we know DEFENDED the non-Christian works and instutitons, though they failed ultimately)

We have the "Christians", which includes a huge range of people, from the street masses and popular steet preachers to the high authorities and theologeans.

So, given that we start with the "Greco-Roman" civilization in the 3rd century, what happened to it, and to its works, written and otherwise?

Well, some works, written and otherwise were destroyed or nelegect in the 200 or 300 years of on and off conflict with the "barbarians" (again, many of which were Christians).

However, the Christians also were in opposition to many of the ideas and images of the pre-Christian era, both the religious and philosphical ones.

So, who did what? I mean we can even start saying that we should commend the Christians for preserving classical imagery because the used the Halo of Apollo /Helios / Mithras to represent Jesus, this is kind of like the Christian use of classical Greek works too, twisted and turned into their own way.

Well, so some of the loss is due to the "barbarian invasions", but not all of it is.

If we say that the Greeks had 100 units of "philosophical and scientific works", the fact that the Christians preserved 10% of them, destroyed 20% of them, let 30% rot, and the remaining 40% were lost due to no fault of the Christians, is hardly saying "boy we should be happy that the Christians preserved science adn reason!!!"

If I steal half of your money do you thank me for helping you keep your money????

Wads4

We can concede that this is so, and is partly because the Byzantines were rather less fanatical and crusading than their Catholic counterparts. But how much new science did they produce?--apart from Greek fire?

Wads4

Yes quite; all we are doing is trying to gets fair do's for those people who did not happen to have inherited the classical culture of the Roman(and Byzantine)Empires, and to illustrate that God is quite irrelevent to earthly politics.

Wads4

Thanks for yor informed comments,-I am still rather new to all this and trying to catch up.

mirage

You seem to forget that there has been exchange of ideas and technology for ages between China, India, Europe and the middle East. It effectively forms a continuum rather that a set of discrete "societies". AGain you seem to miss the threshold effect that as soon as a critical mass of economic, technological and intellectual activity get going, that centre is going to dominate developments henceforth.

Well they, particularly India and China, developed some important ideas of their own, and China was pretty technologically, politically and intellectually advanced compared to middle ages Europe. The reasons why Europe in particular, rather than any other region, started moving ahead economically and industrialising will be many and complex, but I'm sure they amount to a helluva lot more than Europe had access to Greek learning.

Again your reasoning isn't quite engaging with what I said. I said it was remarkable that this intellectual activity took place in such a small society as the ancient Greek city states but that this does not imply that the similar ideas would not have developed elsewhere, in time, given the vastly more populous, richer and more technologically advanced societies that followed.

That the regions you mention didn't develop the particular set of ideas of the Greeks (some of which let's face it, are crap) just doesn't contact that position.

No, we shouldn't. That doesn't follow from anything I have said. Please try to read more carefully.

1. I did not say that such development would be frequent.
2. I placed particular focus on economic wealth and transport facilitating intellectual development, so we should not expect poorer or more insular regions to be favoured in this regard.

Indeed many of the ideas of the Greek actually did come from the Persians, and the Indians and Persians both have many things that can compare or be said to surpass the ancient Greeks in terms of technology and certian specific advances, but I think that in terms of the philosophic tradition that developed in Greece, combined with the practical traditions of Rome, this was the best combinations that evolved among people, though it was clearly lacking in mahy respects, it IS what laid the groundwork for modern society, the Indians didn't, and the Persians didn't.[/quote]Well, of course something had to lay the groundwork. It didn't develop on a historical tabula rasa. Again you need to put more effort into argument analysis and close reading.

I did not say that Greek ideas didn't form the foundation of much of (early) modern Western thought. I said that Western civilisation could have had a resurgence in their absence.

Yes it did. Irrelevant to the question of whether the one thing was necessary for the other.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on nebulous "ideas" (most of which from Greece were actually crap) compared to environmental factors, economics and technology, and chance.

A large, rich, pluralistic but relatively stable region with plenty of trade and natural resources, is at some point, sooner or later, going to industrialise. And once it does that, it will increasingly globalise and produce a rich intellectual environment. It could be a matter of many centuries either way, but I cannot see any reason to think that "Greek ideas" are an essential ingredient in this process.

If the Greeks could come up with a steam engine, the idea can't be that damn difficult, unless you think they were some kind of special race of super geniuses. (In which case it is strange they didn't think to use it for something.)

No I didn't. You misread again. I implied it would be easy in a large rich non-intellectually repressive society. I would add to that pluralistic, since it must help to have a hodge podge of different states rather than an overweening single Empire that has a monopoly on policy.

Nothing in the Americas was anything close to the scale and wealth of Europe. Environmentally, it is a bit of a nightmare to get any sort of civilisation started in, particularly without cross cultural fertilisation from Asia and without beasts of burden. It's amazing that there were any, frankly.

Africa is the same. A huge environmental shit hole with no easily navigable large bands of temperate fertile ground.

The wheel wouldn't have been much use to many of them. The Incas lived on really hostile mountain territory. The Aztecs got their civilisation severely attenuated by multiple wars resulting from insufficient water and other environmental problems. The ones that survived survived around the northern Cenote water holes at much reduced population density. And most of all, they were tiny compared to Europe, short lived compared to Europe, poorer than Europe (I'm talking by the time of the Renaissance here), isolated compared to Europe, deprived of key technologies like horses and oxen and many crops, that Europe had inherited from the ancient ancient world... and what more do you want? Maybe they just didn't get lucky either?

Of course it was. A peasant farmer in such cultures produced almost no surplus GDP. They only supported a small elite class at great cost to the peasants, and possibly in the case of some only at the expense of constant belligerent expansion.

Once again: I am suggesting that intellectual development is easy in an already rich, large, stable society or group of societies. And even then it still requires some luck. I.e. the mere presence of largish richish society that didn't do much in your opinion is not incompatible with this thesis.

Further, I have never suggested that Greek learning didn't help Europe, merely that they were not a necessity.

So if you are going to continue to disagree it might be best to disagree with my actual position next time.