Re: ****ny Happy Caliphate

On May 15, 4:45 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:10:34 -0700, William Hyde wrote:
> > On May 15, 3:22 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> So what happened to non-aristocratic non-priestly readin' and writin'
and
> >> 'rithmetic during the supposedly mischaracterized "Dark Ages", again?
>
> >> You know, all the non-aristocratic non-priestly books?
>
> > I'm not sure it is fair to exclude all books with a tinge of
> > aristocratic or priestly influence.
>
> It is if you're wondering how free and educated the general populace was
. . . .

Caesar was an aristocrat and priest.  Are we going
to not count "The Gallic Wars"?

Plato was an aristocrat. Does "The Republic" count?

>
> Which is always my first concern.
>
> > Applying the same standard would wipe out a lot of Roman
> > literature, too.
>
> No argument there, although "priestly"

Caesar and  Marcus Aurelius both held priestly
positions.  Caesar bankrupted himself to get his,
and his calendar reforms were part and parcel of
his priestly duties.

would probably not play a great
> role until the overwhelming of the Roman Empire by the Christians and
the
> establishment of the Christian Empire (I distinguish the two).

I've noticed, but I think this is a serious mistake.

> > But a few examples from memory:
>
> > Boethius "The Consolations of Philosophy" C525
>
> Pretty much a final Stoic bleat

I can't see that that matters.  It is in-period
and original.

And actually Boethius begins the work by disavowing
Stoics and Epicurians both as philosophers.  He's
a Platonist, if anything.

> > Bede "On the Nature of Things", "On the reckoning of time" both c700
>
> I'm not familiar with him, even though I've of course seen many
references
> over the years.

Asserts the roundness of the Earth, says that
he believes the tides are caused by the moon.

He also wrote many ecclesiastical works, which
I left out.

>
> He wasn't an aristocrat or priest?

He was a monk.  But you have to apply a
consistent standard.  Leave out all aristocrats
and you lose pretty much all Roman literature,
except Cicero, and even he is probably out
(many politicians held priesthoods of a greater
or lesser kind).

is he worth reading, at least as much
> as Boethius, to have read 'im once?

Haven't read it myself, but I think it would be
of interest mainly to scholars.


> Hmm.  Not exactly an impressively long roster.

These are what I came up with in a few moments.  And I am not a
medieval scholar by any means.

I have recently read, as I mentioned somewhere
or other, Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians".
Fox cites enough pagan works that it is clear that
vastly more pagan literature existed than I ever
suspected.  I would be surprised if this was not also
the case for the middle ages.

 And Britain was always a
> special case.

I don't know about that.  The Anglo-Saxon invaders
were not particularly literary.  One source says that
the only valid use of the term "Dark Ages" applies
specifically to Britain from 400-700, which apparently
was the initial use of the term in the 1800s.

Just after Bede came  the first Viking raids, so
no more came from that area for a long while.

William Hyde