No "Dark Age" in Byzantium?

[jonkon]

"Inhibited" in that the 12th Century "Renaissance" (ref Chapt 4 of Hannam's God's Philosophers) did not occur earlier. A direct result of Anslem's revival was the establishment of the Cistercians, who widely propagated and promoted the best farming techniques and technology throughout Europe.

[himself]

Sept 6, 2010 14:02:42 GMT jonkon said:

"Inhibited" in that the 12th Century "Renaissance" did not occur earlier.

You don't suppose the saracens, vikings, and magyars had something to do with the lack of material "progress" prior to Lechfeld, or that town life had to revive to some extent to support a class of natural philosophers? How did the Church inhibit science?

Let's leave aside the now-traditional confusion between scientia modernis and natural philosophy.

Sept 6, 2010 14:02:42 GMT jonkon said:

A direct result of Anslem's revival was the establishment of the Cistercians, who widely propagated and promoted the best farming techniques and technology throughout Europe.

So science = {farming, commerce}? Again, how does this demonstrate an inhibition of science by the Church?

[jonkon]

Himself's arguments do not apply to Byzantium, where the ancient manuscripts were never lost, nor to Charlemaign's court, from where nearly all of our most ancient extant manuscripts of antiquity date. In both of these cases, however, there is a notable lack of curiosity about what the manuscripts actually said. This is in notable contrast from when the library at Toledo became available to Western scholars. Here scholars, like Robert Grosseteste, who was one of the original translators, immediately began a critical analysis of their contents, making original contributions to our knowledge. Similarly in Bagdad, after the Nestorians, such as Hunayn ibn Ishaq al-'Abadi, completed their translations into Arabic, their Persian students, such as the sons of Musa, made their own original contributions.

Since the clergy were involved in all four cases, we must look at the respective church doctrines, particularly the church's attitude toward Scripture, for an explanation of the differing outcomes. In the case of Charlemaign and Byzantium, an authoritarian allegorical interpretation of Scripture dominated, where what the Scripture actually said was not as important as what the church hierarchy said the Scripture said. In contrast, in Oxford and Baghdad, the primary motive for the translation effort was to preserve the cultural context so that the Scriptural text might be properly understood.

[timoneill]

Sept 9, 2010 19:57:38 GMT jonkon said:

Himself's arguments do not apply to Byzantium, where the ancient manuscripts were never lost, nor to Charlemaign's court, from where nearly all of our most ancient extant manuscripts of antiquity date.

Pardon? So Charlemagne's court had copies of Ptolemy's Almagest? And all the works of Aristotle? News to me.

Since the clergy were involved in all four cases, we must look at the respective church doctrines, particularly the church's attitude toward Scripture, for an explanation of the differing outcomes. In the case of Charlemaign and Byzantium, an authoritarian allegorical interpretation of Scripture dominated, where what the Scripture actually said was not as important as what the church hierarchy said the Scripture said.

Sorry, but the problem for Charlemagne's court was that they didn't have most of the key texts. What changed later was that these texts were rediscovered and translated into Latin. And in Byzantium it was business as usual, with guys like John Philoponus, Asclepius of Tralles, Olympiodorus' pupils David and Elias, Eustratius of Nicaea, John Italus, Leo the Mathematician, Theodore Metochites, Michael of Ephesus and Michael Psellos all being entirely "curious" about philosophical matters.

[barca]

Mar 14, 2009 12:42:25 GMT timoneill said:

J... but I'm curious about what happened in the East.....Unfortunately my knowledge of Byzantine history generally is sketchy (I can't say it's ever interested me much) and tends to be grouped around points where it intersects with Western European history... Can anyone suggest some reading on this?
Thanks in advance,

If you are looking for a nice overview of Byzantium and its influence on the Western World, I strongly recommend Lars Brownsworth's Lost to the west:
www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407950
It is very well written and it is a captivating read. Even those with no interest in history would find this book entertaining.