The "Dark Ages"

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrinityKnot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
louisak said:
I believe that the term “Dark Ages” actually has value, if used to refer to the period from the fall of the Roman Empire until the rise of the Medieval civilization - in other words, roughly the period from the 4th to the 10th/11th centuries A.D. During this period European civilization more or less disappeared, due to successive waves of barbarian invasions - the Goths, Vikings, Vandals and so on; with a partial revival of civilization in the time of Charlemagne (8th century).

The so called “Middle Ages” on the other hand - what a terrible name; some Catholic historians prefer to call it the Scholastic era as this was the age of the “Schoolmen”, i.e. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and so forth. This was the period from the 11th to 16th centuries roughly speaking. The age of the rise of the universities, the first public hospitals, the great cathedrals, and so forth.

In the imagination of most people, however, the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages refer to the same thing, a period of supposed religious superstition and backwardness, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Why would “Middle Ages” be a terrible name?
 
TrinityKnot said:
Why would “Middle Ages” be a terrible name?
Click to expand...
The “Middle Ages” isn’t terrible per se, but it is generally frowned upon in academic circles. It implies the “middle” of some teleological timeline. Middle of what, or when? It generally implies some sort of “middle” period of stagnation in the “middle” of the grander ages of Antiquity and the Modern Period.

For these reasons, “Medieval” is generally preferred, because it lacks the temporal bias of “Middle Ages.” It’s not so obviously biased as “Dark Ages” though, so it still sees some use.

It’s good you’re asking these questions as a high school student 🙂 You’ll show up to college with a good understanding of what terms are inherently biased/polemical, and which ones are considered more academically sound!
 
IbnFiktur said:
The “Middle Ages” isn’t terrible per se, but it is generally frowned upon in academic circles. It implies the “middle” of some teleological timeline. Middle of what, or when? It generally implies some sort of “middle” period of stagnation in the “middle” of the grander ages of Antiquity and the Modern Period.

For these reasons, “Medieval” is generally preferred, because it lacks the temporal bias of “Middle Ages.” It’s not so obviously biased as “Dark Ages” though, so it still sees some use.

It’s good you’re asking these questions as a high school student 🙂 You’ll show up to college with a good understanding of what terms are inherently biased/polemical, and which ones are considered more academically sound!
Click to expand...
Oh okay, that makes sense!

And thank you 🙂 I love this kind of stuff! And I can’t wait for college 😃
 
IbnFiktur said:
The “Middle Ages” isn’t terrible per se, but it is generally frowned upon in academic circles. It implies the “middle” of some teleological timeline. Middle of what, or when? It generally implies some sort of “middle” period of stagnation in the “middle” of the grander ages of Antiquity and the Modern Period.

For these reasons, “Medieval” is generally preferred, because it lacks the temporal bias of “Middle Ages.”
Click to expand...
Er, they actually have exactly the same temporal denotation, since “mediaeval” means “[pertaining to the] middle age”, the “medium aevum”. The difference between them is merely grammatical: “mediaeval” is an adjective, and thus applies to most of the things discussed in academic circles, such as mediaeval literature, mediaeval belief, and even mediaeval fashion; “the Middle Ages”, on the other hand, is a collective noun, and thus applies to the period in which those things existed.
 
That’s complete hogwash my friend. The barbarian hordes sacked Europe and with it the churches, schools and libraries where civilizing science and information resided. What actually turned it all around was the advent of Irish catholic priests and monks who re-evangelized Europe. There is more than ample documentation for this and you’d have fun with taking in a copy of the following excellent book.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51sz3zeSZsL.SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA115.jpg
** How the Irish Saved Civilization (Hinges of History) by Thomas Cahill (Feb 1, 1996) **
  • Code: 
     [$15.95              $10.85  Paperback](http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345883372&sr=8-1&keywords=how+the+irish+save+western)
Book Description
Click to expand...
Code: 
           The perfect St. Patrick's Day gift, and a book  in the best tradition of popular history -- the untold story of  Ireland's role in maintaining Western culture while the Dark Ages  settled on Europe.
Click to expand...
Every year millions of Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, but they may not be aware of how great an influence St. Patrick was on the subsequent history of civilization. Not only did he bring Christianity to Ireland, he instilled a sense of literacy and learning that would create the conditions that allowed Ireland to become “the isle of saints and scholars” – and thus preserve Western culture while Europe was being overrun by barbarians.
Click to expand...
In this entertaining and compelling narrative, Thomas Cahill tells the story of how Europe evolved from the classical age of Rome to the medieval era. Without Ireland, the transition could not have taken place. Not only did Irish monks and scribes maintain the very record of Western civilization – copying manuscripts of Greek and Latin writers, both pagan and Christian, while libraries and learning on the continent were forever lost – they brought their uniquely Irish world-view to the task.
Click to expand...
 
Mystophilus said:
Er, they actually have exactly the same temporal denotation, since “mediaeval” means “[pertaining to the] middle age”, the “medium aevum”. The difference between them is merely grammatical: “mediaeval” is an adjective, and thus applies to most of the things discussed in academic circles, such as mediaeval literature, mediaeval belief, and even mediaeval fashion; “the Middle Ages”, on the other hand, is a collective noun, and thus applies to the period in which those things existed.
Click to expand...
You’re correct, I apologize.

Regardless, both terms demonstrate the difficulty of finding good, neutral periodizations.
 
1ke said:
I spend so much time in CCD correcting inaccurate information that the kids have gotten from either English/Language Arts or History/Social Studies it is NOT funny. These people can’t teach their way out of a paper bag. I truly weep for the future of America if this is what we get from the teachers.
Click to expand...
Hey, now. I’m sure you don’t mean to disparage all teachers, but it does sort of come off that way in your post. Some of us are very intelligent and gifted teachers. 😉 There will always be a few out there who are not up to par for one reason or another, but I have found that most of us take our jobs very seriously and serve the children in our classrooms with great passion and diligence.
 
TrinityKnot said:
Agreed, everyone here has had fabulous posts and I’m glad for their posts! I can’t wait to get some reading done 🙂 This is right up my alley and I’ve been meaning to do some research on church history. Now’s the time to start!

@oldcatholicdude I’m a senior this year, so I won’t ever have him again. No worries 🙂 My brother did get irritated with him a few times last year but in the end they were okay. We both had to put up with a Geography/Western Civ class with another teacher who tried to teach about the formation of the Catholic church and was getting a few things wrong about core beliefs/not detailing them enough. It was actually funny; my brother and I would just glance at each other with these knowing smiles of “Can you believe this guy? HA”

@tabycat God bless the Irish! 👍 I’m an irish step dancer, and this just makes Ireland even better 🙂

Keep in mind he’s employed by a private Christian school. They employ anyone they see fit, regardless of if they would meet proper education requirements in say, the public school sector or something. For example, my French teacher last year had two degrees: French and Journalism. She did not have any teaching credits however and had never taught a day in her life. She was pretty cool and we did learn some things but she kinda did suck as a teacher. They were desperate, they knew she had graduated from there, and that she was still a Christian. BAM, hired. From her Facebook posts, I got a strong inclination she detested teaching there (she didn’t want to be a teacher) and was very happy when she was employed to write things for an online newspaper or something. 🤷

I had a chemistry teacher who argued last year in a chapel that sin was relevant to the person which is why he had never gotten drunk in his life (his father got into an accident DUI so he figured alcoholism ran in the family) but that maybe drinking for other people wouldn’t be a problem. I’m so happy I have a strong place in my church’s youth program and am friends with so many smart peers/adults because otherwise I’d be completely miserable. I look forward to going to a catholic college next year (hopefully Benedictine in Kansas) where I won’t have to put up with their nonsense anymore.
Click to expand...
If the Christian school is Protestant, they might be using textbooks from publishers that are anti-catholic, such as Bob Jones or Abeka, etc
 
Journey322 said:
Hey, now. I’m sure you don’t mean to disparage all teachers, but it does sort of come off that way in your post. Some of us are very intelligent and gifted teachers. 😉 There will always be a few out there who are not up to par for one reason or another, but I have found that most of us take our jobs very seriously and serve the children in our classrooms with great passion and diligence.
Click to expand...
I am a teacher. I have a degree in secondary education and taught high school.
 
Fun fact: Due to global temperature rise during the 1300s life expectancies went up due to less crop shortages.

But yeah the term “dark age” is inappropriate. Basically Muslims and then Christians expanded upon the works of the Greeks and Romans who in fact got the whole idea of written language from Mesopotamia. ← Bad summary of a semester of world history.
 
Fusiontron said:
Fun fact: Due to global temperature rise during the 1300s life expectancies went up due to less crop shortages.
Click to expand...
And then it went down due to plague and war. Tuchman doesn’t call the 14th century calamitous for nothing.
 
First thing is first here I have to go back to the original post. Francis and Dominic are not Doctors of the Church. Anthony and Aquinas are. There are 33 total, just for reference. (Franciscans are- Anthony, Bonaventure, and Lawerence of Brindisi (Capuchin). Dominicans are Aquinas, Albert the Great, and Catherine of Siena.)

To the idea of the “Dark Ages” more globally- The term, if I remember this correctly, comes from the philosopher Hegel who had no love for that time period. While there were dark times like the Plague, Sacking of Rome, Leprosy, and any number of other minor calamaties no one from the Middle Ages would call it “Dark”. It was simply life. They couldn’t imagine it any other way.

It is also important to remember that the Middle Ages covers 1000 years-ish depending on your dating. Scholars divide it up into blocks to better describe the difrerences. The saints referenced in the original post are from what is called the “High” Middle Ages. It really comes to a head with people like Aquinas and Bonaventure (and to be fair to the minds later Scotus and Occam) which is made possible by the influx of Aristotle as a new way of thinking. The world is Augustininan (and therefore Neo-Platonic) from about 400 until 1150-1200. Aristotle, the Greek, comes to the University of Paris by way of Spain and Intrestingly, the Saracens. They had kept him alive- so well in fact we are pretty sure we have everything that was written by him.

Aristotle, even more interestingly, sets the stage for the “Enlightenment”. His natural philosophy, which Aquinas turns theological is essentially taken for what it is in Aristotle. The rise of science rests on Aristotle’s shoulders. You can actually see the transition happen in the strangest of places (as well as expected ones). The hagiography (the “lives” of the saints), especially the writings about Francis, start talking about “herbs” and other things the later they go on.

So, to sum this all up- the “Dark Ages” is a polemic essentially meant to deride the work of a lot of people who werent “scientific” enough. I also think this is why the modern church, for better or worse (I vote for the worse some of the time) leans so heavily on Aquinas. He is basically “scientific” which acts as a point of dialogue with the modern sciences. (read his epistmology for a great example).

Hope that helps.
 
Franciscanguy said:
First thing is first here I have to go back to the original post. Francis and Dominic are not Doctors of the Church. Anthony and Aquinas are. There are 33 total, just for reference. (Franciscans are- Anthony, Bonaventure, and Lawerence of Brindisi (Capuchin). Dominicans are Aquinas, Albert the Great, and Catherine of Siena.)

To the idea of the “Dark Ages” more globally- The term, if I remember this correctly, comes from the philosopher Hegel who had no love for that time period. While there were dark times like the Plague, Sacking of Rome, Leprosy, and any number of other minor calamaties no one from the Middle Ages would call it “Dark”. It was simply life. They couldn’t imagine it any other way.

It is also important to remember that the Middle Ages covers 1000 years-ish depending on your dating. Scholars divide it up into blocks to better describe the difrerences. The saints referenced in the original post are from what is called the “High” Middle Ages. It really comes to a head with people like Aquinas and Bonaventure (and to be fair to the minds later Scotus and Occam) which is made possible by the influx of Aristotle as a new way of thinking. The world is Augustininan (and therefore Neo-Platonic) from about 400 until 1150-1200. Aristotle, the Greek, comes to the University of Paris by way of Spain and Intrestingly, the Saracens. They had kept him alive- so well in fact we are pretty sure we have everything that was written by him.

Aristotle, even more interestingly, sets the stage for the “Enlightenment”. His natural philosophy, which Aquinas turns theological is essentially taken for what it is in Aristotle. The rise of science rests on Aristotle’s shoulders. You can actually see the transition happen in the strangest of places (as well as expected ones). The hagiography (the “lives” of the saints), especially the writings about Francis, start talking about “herbs” and other things the later they go on.

So, to sum this all up- the “Dark Ages” is a polemic essentially meant to deride the work of a lot of people who werent “scientific” enough. I also think this is why the modern church, for better or worse (I vote for the worse some of the time) leans so heavily on Aquinas. He is basically “scientific” which acts as a point of dialogue with the modern sciences. (read his epistmology for a great example).

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Would anyone say that the times we are in right now are “Dark Ages?” It seems so with the decline in morality, the “anything goes, if it feels good do it,” mentality. The fact that someone can shoot and kill his former boss (as in New York City this week) and then want the police to kill the shooter because life wasn’t worth living. TV presenting shows like “The New Normal” about a homosexual couple and calling that “entertainment”
 
I hesitate to answer this question usually but will give sort of a general one.

Most generations in Christianity have a sense that they are the “Dark Ages” that either need to be “redemed” or that they are the “last generation” because of their (humanity’s collective sins. It goes all the way back to John’s Revelation. More modern examples include The Great Dissapointment, the numerous wrong predictions of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and Jack Van Impe. I think that some of this has to do with the nature of Christianity which is by its nature “anticipatorily eschatological” for a lack of a better term. We anticipate the second coming (however imagined) and we anticipate it to be “on our watch”. As such we look for evidence. I also think there is a sense, even if subconcious, that we want “justice” for the evil doers. God knows the Christians thought that about Nero.

Modern culture in general is deeply rooted in instant-ness and universal accessability. Even as modern as the Civil War there were major comminucaiton problems. One of my favorite stories is that after it wsa over they still fought in the deep south for a few months. They didn’t get the word.

The internet and mass media have allowed us to have information and entertainment at our fingertips any time, any way. This is also true of many things. Medicine, for example. In other words- what we now have is an imense amount of power. We have power over our lives, freedom and even death to some extent. I think it can seem as though some people are losing “power” and in that slipping away we see the world as though it were sinful- well, more than it naturally is.

To talk about the modern world as “Dark” based on culture alone is disengenious to me. It denies the gifts medicine and science in general, theology (JPII and others in the Catholic world as well as greats like Stanley Hauerwas from the Anglican tradition) and other areas have given us. God blesses everyone with gifts. And these people have used them to understand the world around them. Even those we percieve as negitive force us to sharpen our arguments.

So, nah. It’s not the “Dark Ages”. It’s an Age that deals with darkness of its own kind in its own place. It is the cross and witness we bear. Most of my heroes dealt with far worse than this and some of them lost their lives.

And in the end we have something that the world does not: hope.
 
Franciscanguy said:
I hesitate to answer this question usually but will give sort of a general one.

Most generations in Christianity have a sense that they are the “Dark Ages” that either need to be “redemed” or that they are the “last generation” because of their (humanity’s collective sins. It goes all the way back to John’s Revelation. More modern examples include The Great Dissapointment, the numerous wrong predictions of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and Jack Van Impe. I think that some of this has to do with the nature of Christianity which is by its nature “anticipatorily eschatological” for a lack of a better term. We anticipate the second coming (however imagined) and we anticipate it to be “on our watch”. As such we look for evidence. I also think there is a sense, even if subconcious, that we want “justice” for the evil doers. God knows the Christians thought that about Nero.

Modern culture in general is deeply rooted in instant-ness and universal accessability. Even as modern as the Civil War there were major comminucaiton problems. One of my favorite stories is that after it wsa over they still fought in the deep south for a few months. They didn’t get the word.

The internet and mass media have allowed us to have information and entertainment at our fingertips any time, any way. This is also true of many things. Medicine, for example. In other words- what we now have is an imense amount of power. We have power over our lives, freedom and even death to some extent. I think it can seem as though some people are losing “power” and in that slipping away we see the world as though it were sinful- well, more than it naturally is.

To talk about the modern world as “Dark” based on culture alone is disengenious to me. It denies the gifts medicine and science in general, theology (JPII and others in the Catholic world as well as greats like Stanley Hauerwas from the Anglican tradition) and other areas have given us. God blesses everyone with gifts. And these people have used them to understand the world around them. Even those we percieve as negitive force us to sharpen our arguments.

So, nah. It’s not the “Dark Ages”. It’s an Age that deals with darkness of its own kind in its own place. It is the cross and witness we bear. Most of my heroes dealt with far worse than this and some of them lost their lives.

And in the end we have something that the world does not: hope.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your explanation!🙂
 
LegoGE1947 said:
If the Christian school is Protestant, they might be using textbooks from publishers that are anti-catholic, such as Bob Jones or Abeka, etc
Click to expand...
A Beka is anti-Catholic? I got my 7th and 8th grade education from them! Haven’t read the books in a while though. The one that comes to mind is HISTORY OF THE WORLD “from a Christian Perspective”. They had the history of Christendom popes and all, and I don’t remember reading anything about a “trail of blood”. But like I said, its been a while since I read the books. They did I think have the pro-Protestant Revolution bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top