The "Dark Ages"

[robwar]

That first paragraph with the quote of the teacher reflects a complete ignorance of the history of England. The nation was established by St. Alfred and was the most Catholic and beautiful, wealthy and powerful of nations until Henry VIII destroyed not only his nation but his own people and the Church in that country for earthly vice. For 900 years there were no paupers in that nation. When Henry VIII and his predecessors got done with it, it was the most wretched of nations. I recommend “A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland” by William Cobbett, an English Protestant written in the early part of the 19th century.

New American magazine just did are very nice article about King Alfred the great of England.
he was a very devout Catholic, put alot a education reforms in and united the country and hence the beginning of England until the Norman invasion. While they kept calling him “Christian”, he was a devote Catholic.

 

[TrinityKnot]

How did you end up in a protestant school like this? Were there no Catholic schools for you to go to? At least in Catholic schools, you would not be getting the analogy that the Catholic church suppressed knowledge and this is why they are the dark ages. I am just curious how or why you ended up there.

There are no Catholic high schools in my area, the only one ends after 8th grade. My only other option would have been a school about 30-45 minutes away that cost twice as much as this school ($12,000) per year which for high school is a bit ridiculous. If I end up at Benedictine in Kansas it will probably be that much, and I’ll be coming from out of state.

It isn’t a bad school overall. This is probably the worst class I’ve had when it comes to “anti-catholic” themes. The only other one would be a Western Civ class I took, but that was nearly four years ago.

It’s actually been sort of a blessing. I transferred in the 8th grade, having gone to public school my whole life. And I’m active in my church. So I’ve been able to gain a protestant, catholic and secular view on a lot of things. Not a lot of people can say that. But I am pretty excited to be graduated and done; I don’t think I can grow much spiritually at this school anymore.

 

[dawid]

Your teacher is correct in repeating to you what he and many others were taught.
However, it is not the reality.
That viewpoint was presented during the Protestant reformation to discredit the Catholic Church
I recommend reading God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science
amazon.co.uk/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508/

 

[dnlyle53]

Please use this opportunity to read, and write a paper on the ‘dark ages’ and refute this absurd baptist history teacher. A teacher doesn’t just repeat propaganda to his students, so show him the way. Be sure to note your reference material, but you will do all of the students credit by evangelizing them with the Truth. What an opportunity you have, take advantage of this to the nth degree. Be nice about it and present in a humble fashion or else you will come across as arrogant. The Lord Jesus will be with you.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Please use this opportunity to read, and write a paper on the ‘dark ages’ and refute this absurd baptist history teacher. A teacher doesn’t just repeat propaganda to his students, so show him the way. Be sure to note your reference material, but you will do all of the students credit by evangelizing them with the Truth. What an opportunity you have, take advantage of this to the nth degree. Be nice about it and present in a humble fashion or else you will come across as arrogant. The Lord Jesus will be with you.

There is certainly no shortage of arrogance in this world but humility is a rare treasure. So I agree.

 

[Contarini]

Hey everyone, I just had some quick thoughts and a question for you:

I go to a nondenominational protestant high school (the majority of people here are what you would consider “Born Again”) and today my Baptist english teacher began talking to us about the “Dark Ages” in Europe, particularly in England because this is a British Literature class. He said he doesn’t like the term “Dark Ages” very much (can’t remember why) but basically explained to us that they were called that because the Catholic church suppressed learning, academics, enlightenment, etc. whatever in order to remain in control and power. Therefor, there were not many writings produced during this time. Thus, why they are called the “Dark” ages.

OK, that’s funny–the main reason not to like the term “Dark ages” is precisely because of the caricature your teacher is presenting.

Is he talking about the Middle Ages as a whole or about the early Middle Ages? The term “Dark Ages” has not been used by serious historians for the Middle Ages as a whole for at least a century. It’s still used sometimes to talk about the early Middle Ages (roughly 500-1000), though less so than it used to be. The early Middle Ages did see a drop-off in literary production in much of Europe, for reasons that had nothing to do with the power of the Catholic Church but rather with the chaos and destruction of those times. Actually, England was the exception–the Anglo-Saxons produced quite a bit of great literature, such as Beowulf, during the “Dark Ages.”

The only sense in which what he’s saying was true during the early Middle Ages was that the Church was the only source of literacy and culture for much of that period in much of Western Europe–and not just the Church but specifically the monasteries. Monks were mostly interested in devotional literature. So not much secular literature was produced. But that wasn’t because the Church was “trying to preserve power” but because the Western Roman Empire had collapsed and only the Church was preserving its traditions.

If your teacher is describing the “High” and “Late” Middle Ages this way, then that’s just outrageous. There were lots of writings produced during those periods, the majority of them under the auspices of the Church. But there was also a lot of secular literature–courtly love poetry that idealized adulterous love affairs; satirical poetry (some of it produced by clergy and even monks) that mocked the Church and reveled in bawdy humor (Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana sets some of these “Goliardic” poems to music). Your teacher needs to learn more about the Middle Ages.

In England there was a dearth of literature during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but that was for a very specific reason: England was ruled by a French-speaking aristocracy, so the people who had the wealth and leisure to sponsor vernacular literature weren’t sponsoring literature in English. English literature really took off again in the fourteenth century. I can see how a conservative Protestant with a “Whig” bias and poor understanding of the period would misinterpret this as culture finally starting to free itself from the grasp of the Church, but it is a serious misinterpretation. Actually the Church was far more repressive during this era–starting at the beginning of the fifteenth century, in fact, the English Church banned Bibles in English and even tried to prevent any discussion of theology in English.

He emphasized that he was not trying to bash any catholics at all and singled me out (he knows I’m catholic) asking if I was offended because my brother had him as a teacher last year and was. He said that the Catholic church was completely different today than it had been in the past (to which I thought: well… you’re kinda sorta right but you’re not being specific). I laughed and said I wasn’t offended because I was kinda put on the spot. And I’m not really offended, I just thought what he was saying didn’t sound right.

He sounds like a well-meaning guy–I don’t want to be too hard on him. But you do need to challenge him on this, as a matter of accuracy. He just doesn’t understand the Middle Ages.

Regine Pernoud has a book called Those Awful Middle Ages, which I have not read but which I understand debunks a lot of the myths. (Pernoud is a very respected historian of the late Middle Ages who has written about Joan of Arc, among other topics.)

As someone else has said, the idea that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth was flat is a myth (well, maybe one or two early medieval writers did, and of course uneducated people may have believed such things). Jeffery Burton Russell has written an excellent book on the subject called Inventing the Flat Earth.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

that is also why the Bible was hard to get, another commonly promoted myth. the bible was scarce because it is a big book that had to be copied by hand (until the Gutenburg press).
In order to control the accuracy of hand copying, the church had dedicated monks to do it.
The bible was not scarce because that bad old catholic church was trying to suppress it and keep it from the common man (although most of the common men and women were illiterate and couldn’t read anyway.)

Your statement is accurate for the earlier Middle Ages.

But medieval Church leaders did have concerns about laypeople reading the Bible, particularly in the later Middle Ages. The vernacular Bible was banned in England in the 15th century–yes, the Bible that was banned was produced by an unorthodox group, but there was no effort to produce an orthodox counterpart.

The same measure was taken in the 13th century in France. There I believe the “Bible” that was banned may have been a paraphrase, with lots of overtly heretical material–but again the Church’s response was not to produce an orthodox counterpart.

However, there were translations or paraphrases of large parts of Scripture available in much of Europe throughout much of the Middle Ages, and after the invention of printing all European countries except for England produced vernacular Bibles. Church leaders shook their heads occasionally about these translations, worrying that it wasn’t good for laypeople to have vernacular Bibles because of the dangers of heretical misinterpretation, but only in England were such Bibles actually banned that I know of.

English Protestants have tended to take the English situation and extrapolate it to the rest of Europe. I think this may be what the teacher is doing with regard to English literature–English literature was fairly scarce until the 14th century for entirely secular reasons, and he may be misinterpreting that fact.

Edwin

 

[gus]

I went to American Public school in the 1950’s
They told us the dark ages didn’t end until the 1500’s
When I went to Europe the best architure was from 900
to 1300.Infact other than Florence and St Peters there is not much worth seeing built after. that time
One could say the dark ages began in the 1500’s
that’s when chattel slavery was reindroduced into western civilazation.
As for a truly dark age you can’t beat the 20th century.
100 million killed in wars. geniocides famine 20-50 million killed by Spainish Influenza. Every bit a deadly as any plague in history.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I went to American Public school in the 1950’s
They told us the dark ages didn’t end until the 1500’s
When I went to Europe the best architure was from 900
to 1300.Infact other than Florence and St Peters there is not much worth seeing built after. that time
One could say the dark ages began in the 1500’s
that’s when chattel slavery was reindroduced into western civilazation.
As for a truly dark age you can’t beat the 20th century.
100 million killed in wars. geniocides famine 20-50 million killed by Spainish Influenza. Every bit a deadly as any plague in history.

I’m thinking the dark ages continue now with 9/11, people living in fear, an anti-catholic US President, moral relativism, the Church in a moral and numerical decline, rampant divorce, etc

 

[dawid]

Your statement is accurate for the earlier Middle Ages.

But medieval Church leaders did have concerns about laypeople reading the Bible, particularly in the later Middle Ages. The vernacular Bible was banned in England in the 15th century–yes, the Bible that was banned was produced by an unorthodox group, but there was no effort to produce an orthodox counterpart.

The same measure was taken in the 13th century in France. There I believe the “Bible” that was banned may have been a paraphrase, with lots of overtly heretical material–but again the Church’s response was not to produce an orthodox counterpart.

However, there were translations or paraphrases of large parts of Scripture available in much of Europe throughout much of the Middle Ages, and after the invention of printing all European countries except for England produced vernacular Bibles. Church leaders shook their heads occasionally about these translations, worrying that it wasn’t good for laypeople to have vernacular Bibles because of the dangers of heretical misinterpretation, but only in England were such Bibles actually banned that I know of.

English Protestants have tended to take the English situation and extrapolate it to the rest of Europe. I think this may be what the teacher is doing with regard to English literature–English literature was fairly scarce until the 14th century for entirely secular reasons, and he may be misinterpreting that fact.

Edwin

One of the concerns with access to Bibles was them being chained into churches - this was because some of the pages were adorned with gold and could be stripped for theft.

You however neglected to add that it was technologically not possible to reproduce large volumes of literature including the Bible until the advent of the Gutenberg press. Thereafter the Douay Rheims Bible was printed, followed by the protestants’ King James Bible.

The intent appears not to be preventing access to the Bible, but logistic constraints!

 

[frantony]

Most mediaevalists **don’t **call them the Dark Ages. In fact, mediaevalists tend to get rather ranty about the term, in much the same way that Egyptologists do when people start talking about pyramids being built by aliens. The people who do call them the Dark Ages tend to be those who do not specialise in the period, and who really ought to stay the heck out of it.

The term comes from Petrarch, and from the attempt among the literati of his time to differentiate themselves from preceding centuries which they represented as a period of ignorance well below their own sophistication.

Those Egyptologists do not know that the Pyramids were built by Moses, Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church. How stupid can they get??!!

 

[frantony]

Did they listen to Beach Boys music while they were "Serfin’?!

In those ages, they were listening to the Beach boys when they were roasting Joan of arc at the stakes, and burning the libraries in Alexandria, and when burning anybody who translated Bible into English or other vernacular languages along with their translated Bibles.

 

[LegoGE1947]

One of the concerns with access to Bibles was them being chained into churches - this was because some of the pages were adorned with gold and could be stripped for theft.

You however neglected to add that it was technologically not possible to reproduce large volumes of literature including the Bible until the advent of the Gutenberg press. Thereafter the Douay Rheims Bible was printed, followed by the protestants’ King James Bible.

The intent appears not to be preventing access to the Bible, but logistic constraints!

Chaining Bibles into churches is similar to a bank putting chains to pens at their counters. To keep people from walking off with them.

 

[dawid]

Chaining Bibles into churches is similar to a bank putting chains to pens at their counters. To keep people from walking off with them.

An apt analogy, particularly for gold pens!

 

[LegoGE1947]

An apt analogy, particularly for gold pens!

At alot of places the pens don’t have to be gold. People will walk off with them anyhow

 

[Contarini]

One of the concerns with access to Bibles was them being chained into churches - this was because some of the pages were adorned with gold and could be stripped for theft.

But that’s a silly straw man–it’s a nice metaphor for ill-informed Protestants to play with, but of course chaining Bibles had nothing to do with limiting access.

But that doesn’t mean that the Church did not want to limit access. It did, right through the early 19th century, and documented its intentions in this regard over and over.

You however neglected to add that it was technologically not possible to reproduce large volumes of literature including the Bible until the advent of the Gutenberg press.

Because in fact the “Wycliffite Bible” circulated in manuscript and was banned in manuscript.

The explosion of vernacular translations (in every language except English) followed Gutenberg, indeed. And while churchmen grumbled to some extent, there was no attempt I know of to ban these translations until the rise of Protestantism.

Thereafter the Douay Rheims Bible was printed, followed by the protestants’ King James Bible.

And preceded by a number of Protestant translations. . . Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible. . .

The intent appears not to be preventing access to the Bible, but logistic constraints!

I’m afraid that the evidence is solidly against you. There’s a well-established track record of the Church regulating (or even shutting off) access to the Bible for laity during times when heresy was seen as a serious danger.

The Council of Toulouse forbade laity to have copies of the Bible as a whole, even in Latin, and forbade them to have vernacular translations of the Psalter or the Breviary. (Canon 14, available in *Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, *ed. Edward Peters, p. 195).

Archbishop Arundel’s 1409 Constitutions forbade anyone to translate the Scriptures into English “by his own authority”–i.e., without official permission (Constitution VII). Such permission was not granted until after the Reformation. This was not about logistics–it was about the fear of heresy.

After the Reformation, there was a general rule requiring permission of the bishop for lay reading of Scripture in the vernacular. In 1713 Pope Clement XI condemned, among other propositions of the Jansenist theologians Paschasius Quesnel, a number which asserted that laypeople ought to be allowed to read Scripture freely (nos. 79-85).

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a useful if extremely defensive summary of this history in its article on Scripture (scroll down to “Attitude of the Church towards the reading of the Bible in the vernacular”). The last sentence of the section is question-begging, because the whole question is whether the reading of Scripture is generally beneficial or harmful for the laity, and from the thirteenth through the early nineteenth century the answer most common given by authorities within the Catholic Church was that it was likely to be harmful and should be heavily regulated.

However, the CE certainly contradicts your claim that it was all about logistics!

It is wearisome to have to repeat these basic historical facts to people determined to obscure them for propagandistic reasons. Protestants grossly overstate the case that the Church limited lay access to Scripture, but that doesn’t justify Catholics in making equally outrageous claims on the other side.

Edwin

 

[Franciscanguy]

It is wearisome to have to repeat these basic historical facts to people determined to obscure them for propagandistic reasons. Protestants grossly overstate the case that the Church limited lay access to Scripture, but that doesn’t justify Catholics in making equally outrageous claims on the other side.

Edwin

This is all correct. Ultimately, the question that most of the problem hinges on is whether or not the laity should have an “unfiltered” access to the Bible. (sola scriptura anyone?) This is still a question today especially when you look at the American Christian Churches. The rise of the “independent non-demonitonational church” Is along this kind of movement- don’t tell me how to intrepret things. It’s my relationship with Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) that leads me to understand the Bible.

 

[johnnyjones]

The Protestant “church” isn’t the church of their past. They’ve added a gizillion more denominations with a gizillion more beliefs. For a Protestant to say the Catholic church has changed since the middle ages is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[rwm2020]

Watching Mankind: The Story of All of Us…and they claim the Islamic religion preserved all knowledge in the Dark Ages.

Lovely how they ignore the actions of the Catholic Church!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hey everyone, I just had some quick thoughts and a question for you:

I go to a nondenominational protestant high school (the majority of people here are what you would consider “Born Again”) and today my Baptist english teacher began talking to us about the “Dark Ages” in Europe, particularly in England because this is a British Literature class. He said he doesn’t like the term “Dark Ages” very much (can’t remember why) but basically explained to us that they were called that because the Catholic church suppressed learning, academics, enlightenment, etc. whatever in order to remain in control and power. Therefor, there were not many writings produced during this time. Thus, why they are called the “Dark” ages.

He emphasized that he was not trying to bash any catholics at all and singled me out (he knows I’m catholic) asking if I was offended because my brother had him as a teacher last year and was. He said that the Catholic church was completely different today than it had been in the past (to which I thought: well… you’re kinda sorta right but you’re not being specific). I laughed and said I wasn’t offended because I was kinda put on the spot. And I’m not really offended, I just thought what he was saying didn’t sound right.

I’m a bit of history buff (more American than World). But I felt it wasn’t right because when I think of all of the saints that lived during this time, they produced a lot of writings, etc and of course some became doctors of the church (St. Anthony, St. Francis, St Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc). I researched a lot of these saints during my Confirmation class and even ended up picking St. Anthony as my saint.

Researching further, I’m finding most historians don’t even really use the term “Dark Ages” anymore because of developments that happened during this period such as the creation of universities, councils, parliaments, and a flourishing intellectual life.

So, does anyone know why historians call them the “Dark Ages”? Was it because of the superstitions, science theories (like a flat earth), etc. people at the time held? Was it because for some reason historians couldn’t find many writings from this time period or whatever? If you’d like to point me towards any materials I could read that would help me, I’d love to see them. Thanks for reading and giving your (name removed by moderator)ut guys! Cheers

Gosh, is this what he’s saying? No wonder he’s a literature teacher, not a history one. I doubt you’d find any credible history book today that claims that the Church suppressed learning during the Dark Ages.

When you consider that essentially uneducated (what we’d consider uneducated, that is, generally without an established language, and subsequently, literature, mathematics, philosopher, etc.) barbarians destroyed the Western half of the Empire, it plunged Europe back hundreds of years. Compare what happened to Greece during her dark ages - it took many centuries to recover. In fact, there are a couple of points in the Church’s favour: (i) Rome was only spared because of the efforts of the Church, and (ii) it was the Church that maintained the copies of ancient manuscripts, not only the Bible.

I’d suggest you lend your teacher a decent history book.