Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion Subject: Re: More Non-History Message-ID: <15546@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Thu, 4-Sep-86 02:32:33 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15546 Posted: Thu Sep 4 02:32:33 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 05:10:29 EDT References: <15499@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1639@ames.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 120 Xref: linus net.religion:10707 talk.religion:51 In article <1639@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith): >> Plot synopsis: Brian "Easter Bunny" McNeill takes on Stuart "2001" >>Gathman. Kismet, probably. In any case, Brian seems to be a recent graduate >>of the Oleg Kiselev School of Historical Analysis. We find: > ...problem's with McNeill's version of history, true. But >I have a few problems with Gene's, as well. And I have a problem with Kenn's: his method of disagreeing with me is to agree with me. This makes it harder to argue, but I found a way. >>In article <3554@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: >>>The reason why one of the few >>>documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church >>>took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents >>>were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's >> While there were book burning incidents, on the whole the Church is >>credited much more for *saving* the literature of the ancient world than >>destroying it. > It is true that one of the monastic orders preserved >ancient writings. One might wonder if anti-Xian and heretical >tracts numbered among the documents they preserved :-). But books >were also ordered destroyed by the church. An edict of Theodosius >II in 448 ordered the works of Porphyry (a leading pagan) >destroyed, and no more than fragments of his works survive, in >fact. Seems he wrote a treatise called "Against The Christians" >which Theodosius didn't like. This is what I mean by a "book burning incident". Porphyry (if memory serves) was a neo-Platonist philosopher, so this in any case is not a destruction a non-Christian version of events of the 1st century. As you suggest, I think a lot of the reason we don't have anti-Christian literature is due to passive rather than active reasons. A medieval copyist will copy Origen's 'Contra Celsus', but not Celsus. Why fault him for that? It's a lot of work just to copy some naughty old pagan author you know is being stir-fried in Hell somewhere anyway. And as you mention later, the result is that we *do* end up knowing a lot about people like Celsus, anyway. > But most book-burning was reserved for heretical Xian >beliefs, not the pagans, and sources on many of these heresies >are quite fragmentary as a result. And so we find that even very salacious stuff like 'The Greek Anthology' was carefully preserved; the book-burning was not nearly as bad as it could have been. >>It is false that the Crusades destroyed most non-Christians >>(that is not even what they attempted to do). The Albigensian campaign >>and the Spanish Inquisition were the main attacks on non-Christians I >>can recall. > The Medieval church was distinctly discriminatory towards >Jews from at least the 5th century on. Even leaving aside the >Inquisition, I think it's fair to say that the Church's attitude >toward pogroms was a bit like a 1920's Southern sheriff's >attitude toward the Klan; just look the other way (and maybe wink). Antisemitism in the Middle Ages became gradually worse -- just as it became worse after the Middle Ages ended. It became really bad only after the Crusades, partly because of the mass hysteria of the times and rumors that the Jews were on the side of the Moslems. Church and secular authorities were very often the ones who protected the Jews against the mob. In any case, we all live in the most antisemitic century in history, so it seems a little silly to point the finger of scorn at the Middle Ages. >>And the Middle Ages were not one of the worst times for slavery by any means. > Matter of definition. Slavery, per se, went into a >decline in the Middle Ages, but serfdom rose to take its place. >And the difference between serf and slave (serfs can only be >bought/sold/traded along with the land they work, not seperately) >can seem slight to modern eyes. As you say, slavery declined. Later, it grew again. So why pick on the Middle Ages? I think serfdom, with all its problems, was a different institution than slavery and preferable to it. >>In article <3556@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: >> >>>Really? The only evidence remaining from that time period [1st cent.] (due to >>>the Xian purge in the middle ages, wherein all "heretical" works >>>were destroyed (or at least as much as could be found)) we have >>>is the Bible, plus a very few other scattered works of no relevence. >> Care to document this claim? > I've mentioned one instance; here's another. Here's a >quote from J.B. Bury's HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE, vol. 1, >p. 380: "Marcian's law of A.D. 455 against the Eutychians was >severe enough. They were excluded from the service of the State; >they were forbidden to publish books criticising the Council of >Chalcedon; and their literature, like that of the Nestorians, was >condemned to be burned." This IS NOT documentation of Brian's claim, but of some other claim. Read what he wrote. I still maintain that Brian's stuff is typical of the sporadic nonsense that appears about the Middle Ages. Brian is worried about how completely oppressive the times were. One of the more oppressive periods of the Middle Ages was the beginning of the 14th century. And what do we find? We find things like 'Le Roman de Fauvel', a violent and brilliant attack on both Church and State, set to very daring and 'advanced' music -- and a popular hit. Dante would place Popes in Hell, and a little later, Chaucer seems to write pretty freely as far as I can see. Compared to modern oppression, this just doesn't rate. People keep attributing things to the Middle Ages which are more true of other time periods. We went through slavery and antisemitism and political oppression -- another one that keeps turning up is the witchcraft hysteria, which was a Renaissance phenomena. I think people should quit talking nonsense about the Middle Ages. And Kenn -- as a person who cares about history, I would like to think you agree. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?"J.M. Barrie