On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > YHO is not accurate. The dictionaries were used > > because "Dark Ages" > > is a recognized term with which you disagree. Not > > being a historian I > > am not obligated to use more than general terms. > > Which is why I posted a correction. > > Where in the Hell did I even use any dates!? > > When I asked for definitions and you posted them.
The "dates" I posted were "the Fall of Rome" and "the rebirth of reason known as the Renaissance." > > > As you point out, historians at this time disagree > > about the time of > > the Renaissance and you fall into a modern camp > > denying there was even > > a Renaissance. A brief checking of current > > encyclopedias online > > indicates the term is still in current use in their > > historical > > articles but now note that a few are beginning to > > refer to it as a > > "cultural Renaissance." That my use of the terms is > > acceptable also > > should have been obvious as the current history > > professor I quoted > > uses those terms. > > That's fine. I was pointing out that that is not a > universal belief within the community. OK, and I have learned that. > > > I am left to speculate if there is some conservative > > or religious > > basis to such strong objection to the term Dark Ages > > and denial of the > > Renaissance. > > No. The objection is the some 100 years of belief in > pop history that the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages > (def 2). It still pervades pop history, though things > are getting better. The conservative/religious comment > is silly. > > As far as dates are concerned: you make the allegation > that the Church hindered intellectual growth because > of its power, bias, etc. This would be impossible > during the early period between 500-1000, as the > Church barely survived. The period between 1000-1300, > which is part of the aformentioned 12th C rennaisance, > clearly contradicts your statement as this was the > major period of Church power and reform. Believing it is impossible for the Church to retard learning between 500-1000 because it barely survived is silly. It was destroying libraries and books before that time. I agree with you that the Church was at its all time high in political power between 1000-1300 but this is irrelevant. It was in this period that the seeds of a Renaissance were sprouting with the rise of scholars not necessarily agreeing with the Church in the Church controlled universities. Perhaps some intellectual movements in the Church such as Aquinas being condemned for heresy in 1277 but being canonized in 1323 are influential. The rise of the study of Aristotle and a decline in Plato might also help scientific thought and lead to Bacon and Newton. Upon further investigation I agree with your objection to the term Dark Ages. It is difficult to tell when that period would begin or where 'Light' would be before it. Gary - Enlightened maru
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
