SageSkip, can you also do an essay on things people consider to be Medieval that are actually Renaissance/Reformation? I feel like there's a pretty big list there.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Middle Ages were not dark
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
Skip, can you also do an essay on things people consider to be Medieval that are actually Renaissance/Reformation? I feel like there's a pretty big list there.
I can do that, though not in the near future. I have to run down a wonderful list that made the email circuit ... well, I came across it back around 2000 or so. It was a wide-eyes, slightly breathless listing of did-you-knows about things medieval, nine-tenths of which was nonsense. I wrote a reply, way back then, but it's buried under dusty electrons now. I'll try to find it and put it in my TBW (to be written) queue.
More generally, though, you are absolutely right. Many of the stereotypes of medieval are in fact early modern. There are historians who have studied the history of "medievalism." I'll try to include a reference or two.
More generally, though, you are absolutely right. Many of the stereotypes of medieval are in fact early modern. There are historians who have studied the history of "medievalism." I'll try to include a reference or two.
The Dark One
Auror
As a devout medievalist I find this to be a somewhat breathtaking conversation.
My biggest issue, across the board, is the apparent treating of an entire continent - over about a thousand years - with massive regional and temporal variations as a monoculture. Dubrovnik in 600AD was awfully different from Berlin in 950AD or York in 1430AD.
There are so many aspects of the discussion with which I could take issue, but I'll limit myself to democracy. There are people on this forum who genuinely think ANY place at ANY time between 476AD and 1470AD in Europe was more democratic than the first world today? Seriously?
For a start, if you use the word "democracy" in 2019, you must mean democracy as it is understood in 2019. To do otherwise is pointlessly semantic and misleading. So if you really are trying to make a point about comparative democracy, you do your argument no service by trying to win semantic points.
As for the actual realities, I highly recommend Perry Anderson's book Lineages of the Absolutist State if you want to get a proper scholarly insight into the politics of the medieval period. It was very far from democracy as we understand it now; ie, universal suffrage for all people of qualifying age. The closest any culture came to democracy in the middle ages was the Icelandic Althing created in 988AD. And this only happened because Iceland was settled by 2nd sons and other landless warlords around about the same time. There was no pre-extant overlord so the various leaders were forced to agree on rules and judgments in a manner unheard of since antiquity.
The Saxon witangemot in England was similar-ish, no-one could be king without the sanction of the witan, but this was a very qualified democracy - ie, had to be an earl or very senior thegn to have a say. The Magna Carta of 1215, of course, was mostly only about the rights of nobles (and rescinded almost immediately by King John).
Finally, on local laws being somehow more democratic in the middle ages...are you kidding? Local barons (especially the proto-feudal warlords) were a law unto themselves with the power of life and death and no-one to question them. Not even the king. It wasn't until the common law was established in England under Edward the First that barons had to be mindful of a higher law than themselves.
My biggest issue, across the board, is the apparent treating of an entire continent - over about a thousand years - with massive regional and temporal variations as a monoculture. Dubrovnik in 600AD was awfully different from Berlin in 950AD or York in 1430AD.
There are so many aspects of the discussion with which I could take issue, but I'll limit myself to democracy. There are people on this forum who genuinely think ANY place at ANY time between 476AD and 1470AD in Europe was more democratic than the first world today? Seriously?
For a start, if you use the word "democracy" in 2019, you must mean democracy as it is understood in 2019. To do otherwise is pointlessly semantic and misleading. So if you really are trying to make a point about comparative democracy, you do your argument no service by trying to win semantic points.
As for the actual realities, I highly recommend Perry Anderson's book Lineages of the Absolutist State if you want to get a proper scholarly insight into the politics of the medieval period. It was very far from democracy as we understand it now; ie, universal suffrage for all people of qualifying age. The closest any culture came to democracy in the middle ages was the Icelandic Althing created in 988AD. And this only happened because Iceland was settled by 2nd sons and other landless warlords around about the same time. There was no pre-extant overlord so the various leaders were forced to agree on rules and judgments in a manner unheard of since antiquity.
The Saxon witangemot in England was similar-ish, no-one could be king without the sanction of the witan, but this was a very qualified democracy - ie, had to be an earl or very senior thegn to have a say. The Magna Carta of 1215, of course, was mostly only about the rights of nobles (and rescinded almost immediately by King John).
Finally, on local laws being somehow more democratic in the middle ages...are you kidding? Local barons (especially the proto-feudal warlords) were a law unto themselves with the power of life and death and no-one to question them. Not even the king. It wasn't until the common law was established in England under Edward the First that barons had to be mindful of a higher law than themselves.
- Thread starter
- #24
Aldarion
Archmage
When I use the word democracy, I mean it as it was originally used in Greece. Which is to say, direct and uncircumscribed rule of the people. Anything else is a republic at best, not a democracy.
You are confusing feudalism with Middle Ages. Though you could say that e.g. Byzantine Empire was not a medieval state, but that would limit Middle Ages to only few regions of the world.
And suffrage =/= democracy, at least in how I use it. Referendums and protests are the ultimate expression of democracy, not elections; and Byzantine Empire had all three, despite formally being an autocratic empire. Again, form =/= function, and functionally, Byzantine Empire was, though not an outright democracy, definitely a republic. I will direct you here for a more detailed explanation. Might be better to continue discussion about Byzantine republicanism there, as well, since it might be difficult to avoid drawing onto modern examples.
The Dark One
Auror
Frankly, I don't think you've engaged at all with my point regarding monoculture, but in any case... If you continue to insist that the only valid use of the word democracy is that as generated by the ancient Greeks, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why not look up polysemy - it's all about the way the meaning of words can evolve.
Why not look up polysemy - it's all about the way the meaning of words can evolve.
- Thread starter
- #26
Aldarion
Archmage
I did note that there were differences, but point was that absolute monarchy is actually post-medieval, for the most part. And even then, the state lacked the sheer oppressive apparatus of modern states. Further, many cities in Middle Ages were ruled by city councils, and only paid taxes and provided soldiers to the feudal lord / monarch / whatever. These city councils were effectively similar to modern-day city governments, in form and function both; except cities actually had far more autonomy than today.
http://www.isp.hr/wp-content/uploads/TOC-and-Introduction-Towns-and-Cities-1.pdf
The Dark One
Auror
But I haven't mentioned absolute monarchy...
- Thread starter
- #28
Aldarion
Archmage
I have mentioned it because it is the first time a state gained anything resembling capacity for oppression that a modern state has. Until then, state could not become autocratic / authoritarian at local level even if it wanted to.
>For a start, if you use the word "democracy" in 2019, you must mean democracy as it is understood in 2019.
I would suggest there are at least two other ways to consider the word, or ways to define it. One would be what Aldarion mentioned, which is to use it in its original form. Another is to use the term as it would have been understood by the people at the time one is studying. A third would be to use the modern understanding.
Each is slippery. We can't really know what the Greeks understood by the term, we can only know what writers who use that actual word appear to mean. It's entirely possible there were other nuances. Similarly, one can't really assume everyone in 2019 all have the same understanding of what "democracy" means. One can take a formal definition from here or there and go with that, but there's certainly not unanimity of opinion on this.
Being a historian, I naturally prefer to look at the understanding at the time, which is why I raised the point about not actually encountering a discussion of democracy in any medieval political writings (e.g., Bartolus of Sassoferrato). I'm not entirely sure what to make of that; I just make the observation.
In any case, given that different people are proceeding from different assumptions and definitions, it's not surprising we reach differing conclusions.
I would suggest there are at least two other ways to consider the word, or ways to define it. One would be what Aldarion mentioned, which is to use it in its original form. Another is to use the term as it would have been understood by the people at the time one is studying. A third would be to use the modern understanding.
Each is slippery. We can't really know what the Greeks understood by the term, we can only know what writers who use that actual word appear to mean. It's entirely possible there were other nuances. Similarly, one can't really assume everyone in 2019 all have the same understanding of what "democracy" means. One can take a formal definition from here or there and go with that, but there's certainly not unanimity of opinion on this.
Being a historian, I naturally prefer to look at the understanding at the time, which is why I raised the point about not actually encountering a discussion of democracy in any medieval political writings (e.g., Bartolus of Sassoferrato). I'm not entirely sure what to make of that; I just make the observation.
In any case, given that different people are proceeding from different assumptions and definitions, it's not surprising we reach differing conclusions.
jm.milks
Scribe
This alone is indicative of misrepresenting the topics that are being discussed.
If you're arguing that the dark ages were more forward than people suspect, you shouldn't set the goal post in antiquity.
Aside from that, being a republic doesn't have anything to do with a whether there is a democratic process or not. A republic is a government that is not owned by any individual with limitations on inheritance. This is why Iran is a republic, even though the head of state is chosen by a religious council, and even North Korea, where the leader can be anybody chosen by the previous one. Meanwhile Canada is not a Republic. This is because the government recognizes it's right of self governance and a democratic process as bestowed upon them by the British Royal family, Queen Elizabeth II being the current head of state for Canada, and the rest of the commonwealth.
Shonen
Dreamer
But a lot of these scientific was supposedly and commonly ridiculed by the religions often?
No, hardly at all. Even the story behind Galileo is nowhere near as egregious as people believe (he died an old man, under house arrest, and most tellingly, he was still allowed to publish). Before all that, the Pope at the time even spoke highly of Capernicus's findings.
jm.milks
Scribe
Keep in mind Galileo and Copernicus were both renaissance era, not medieval dark ages
- Thread starter
- #34
Aldarion
Archmage
Not really. Most of that, as as Devor points out, is exaggeration. The example used most often to illustrate Church's repression of science - that of Giordano Bruno - is not an example at all. He did not get in trouble for promoting heliocentric system; what he did get into trouble (fire) for were his theological views, which were completely unrelated to his science stuff. And these examples were not even of Middle Ages to begin with. If anything, Church was more tolerant during Middle Ages, as there was no Protestant reformation yet, and thus much less fear of heresy. Witch trials, another example of "Medieval primitivism" or "Medieval darkness" are not medieval either - their origin lies in Renaissance humanism, with whole Protestant Reformation stuff pouring oil on the fire as witch hunts were often used to get rid of heretics. Catholic Inquisition was in fact one of institutions which was most sceptical in regards to witch hunts, and in Middle Ages proper you would have likely gotten laughed at for talking about witches.
>in Middle Ages proper you would have likely gotten laughed at for talking about witches.
Agreed, with the proviso of "likely." There were those who took witchcraft seriously. I think the earliest example of an execution for it comes from the 11thc. But such examples were scattered very far apart. There's a profound shift in tone that comes along in the 15thc, and not regarding witchcraft alone, but all across the spectrum of religious experience. It's been the object of much study.
But the popular notion that witches were pursued more or less uniformly across the whole span of the Middle Ages is quite wrong. There's a large literature in the MA arguing that witchcraft cannot be real. The theologians argued that to grant anything like natural magic would be to grant a power that was independent of God, which in turn made God something less than omnipotent. Therefore, all claims of supernatural powers had to be cases of superstition or honest mistake.
Another argument granted supernatural powers to witches but held such powers came from the Devil. Some held the practitioners were deceived by Satan; others held the witches knew who they were working with. This latter came to be the dominant position in the 15thc and thereafter. Both these positions entail some really convoluted theological reasoning to tiptoe around dualism. At the popular level, though, the equation of witch with Satan was easily and uncritically made. All part of that shift in tone I mentioned.
The whole business of trying to sort out the natural versus the supernatural did occupy the medieval mind. The literature is a tough slog, but there's good material there for the fantasy writer who is willing to get his shoes muddy.
Agreed, with the proviso of "likely." There were those who took witchcraft seriously. I think the earliest example of an execution for it comes from the 11thc. But such examples were scattered very far apart. There's a profound shift in tone that comes along in the 15thc, and not regarding witchcraft alone, but all across the spectrum of religious experience. It's been the object of much study.
But the popular notion that witches were pursued more or less uniformly across the whole span of the Middle Ages is quite wrong. There's a large literature in the MA arguing that witchcraft cannot be real. The theologians argued that to grant anything like natural magic would be to grant a power that was independent of God, which in turn made God something less than omnipotent. Therefore, all claims of supernatural powers had to be cases of superstition or honest mistake.
Another argument granted supernatural powers to witches but held such powers came from the Devil. Some held the practitioners were deceived by Satan; others held the witches knew who they were working with. This latter came to be the dominant position in the 15thc and thereafter. Both these positions entail some really convoluted theological reasoning to tiptoe around dualism. At the popular level, though, the equation of witch with Satan was easily and uncritically made. All part of that shift in tone I mentioned.
The whole business of trying to sort out the natural versus the supernatural did occupy the medieval mind. The literature is a tough slog, but there's good material there for the fantasy writer who is willing to get his shoes muddy.
