On Mon, 31 May 2004 02:03:02 -0400, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Just some brief interjections before BBQ. It is not clear and seems unlikely that the Moors in Spain were using materials found in Spain. As a center for learning for the Islamic world, why Islamic progress dimmed after Spain was reconquered, it had access to materials from all over the Mediterranean. > > > 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. I had already agreed it was not Dark. I am not sure how a lack of "lively intellectual development " as you state and again your "literary and scholarly development... but not on the same level as before or after" could be described then? Are you suggesting it was the Dim Ages? > 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. Perhaps, I would have to study this more. It may be that it was an improvement, recognizing and using Plato was useful at this time was an improvement from tossing all the pagans out. Recognizing and using Aristotle centuries later was another improvement. Note that it was Aristotelian arguments used against Galileo later so while this was progress it was a slow evolution and had further to go. > > > 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. A misunderstanding here. You had objected to my arguments using as a basis that the Church was engaged in a struggle to survive. > indicates he > > acknowledges it was suppressing liturgy and laws it disagreed with. > > Which is not the same as supressing classical learning either. I don't know, where do you draw the line? Some classical writers and philosophers would be out of favor with the Church, like Aristotle was until he was accepted centuries later. I'm still agreeing with Damon. A Dim but not Dark Age and a very slow evolution toward somewhat more openness in ideas and debate. Of course this implies that before Augustine the Church was very dark. Gary Denton - Pool and BBQ Maru #1 on Google for lemming lesbian spank inferno
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
