6 ms·

Those rules help the Church preserve the ancient knowledge until Gutenberg. As a Catholic, I'm devout of St. Benedict because the creation of monasteries have a

Those rules help the Church preserve the ancient knowledge until Gutenberg. As a Catholic, I'm devout of St. Benedict because the creation of monasteries have a huge impact of the human knowledge.

andrepd 6y ago
This is a widely known but misleading "fact". The truth is much more complicated. For one, an almost universally overlooked bit of history is how absolutely crucial muslim scholars were in preserving classical texts, in keeping an unbroken chain from the Classical Age until the Renaissance. Places like Al-Andalus -- muslim Iberia that is -- or Bagdhad, were the centres of knowledge in the world in their time, and also places of surprisingly high religious tolerance, where Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars studied and discussed together. Many translators and schools of translators were founded and supported, and that's the path countless Greek and Roman tomes took until our days: translated to Arabic, later "rediscovered" by the West. Among Christian monks, on the other hand, for centuries starting around 300-400CE the highest goal was asceticism, one of the corolaries of which was that one should waste no time studying or preserving pagan texts or indeed anything which were not: prayer books, missals, homilies, responsories, etc. An innumerable amount of works were lost during the centuries where Christian monasticism was most active. If indeed the monks preserved that ancient, pagan knowledge, then how can this be? Not to mention the fact that Christians post-Constantine and Theodosious were engaged in brutal and relentless persecution and suppression of non-Christians, so called "pagans", and pagan art, pagan temples, pagan beliefs, and of course, pagan literature. They burned temples and all the art therein, they burned libraries, they suppressed academies and professors, either by force or by ending the state's patronage, This paper is a great read, admittedly biased in its sources but not misleading (it cites contemporary opponents, rather than christians): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27899562.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27899562.pdf
- cjameskeller 6y ago
  True, but note also the influence of the (eastern) Roman Empire we now call the Byzantines, on the Renaissance, when Constantinople fell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissa...
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    Well one, no Ottomans, no fall of Byzantium, no Renaissance. :-) But more seriously, the Eastern Empire was in communication with their Muslim neighbors. For example, the iconoclastic controversy and the final resolution in favor of icons only makes sense in a context where your neighbors are much harder core than you are about idolatry and it’s embarrassing to the intelligentsia.
- throwawayhist 6y ago
  I think it's always important, when talking about Al-Alndalus - that even in works like The ornament, there is the temptation to selectively play up cooperative elements of the society and turning a blind eye to the fact that the general circumstances of the society are not one in which we as moderns would see as particularly 'multicultural' or 'tolerant' ; Scholars are good at holding these things in separation lay people generally muddle the two. Holding other religions as subservient classes is not in line with our ideals of modern religious tolerance. I think its somewhat inevitable that pagan works would be lost over the centuries, and less surprising that they would survive in dryer climates. Ultimately, I think to make the christians look particularly oppresive and destructive one has to overlook a lot of pagan violence. In the case of the islamic world, we can say for sure that there was a general destruction of churches, existing infrastructure and a general looting of most of the areas that came under islamic domination. And this is the pattern for the exchange of cultures nothing unusual. Taking the Dome of the Rock for an illustrative example - the Mosque at the dome of the rock began as a looted Marian shrine, built over the ancient roman temple which the romans themselves built over Herod's second temple.
  - jholman 6y ago
    I think it's useful to understand religious intolerance in a few tiers. The following tier-list is a sketch, but I think illustrates the idea: Tier 1 (most intolerant): Suppress the out-group vigorously, including executions, torture, secret police, interrogations, etc. Tier 2: Suppress the out-group violently (executions) any time they're noisy, but don't seek them out. Tier 3: Disfavour the out-group, without permitting conversion. Tier 4: Disfavour the out-group, permitting them to convert. Tier 5: Disfavour the out-group socially and informally, but not in matters of enforced law. Tier 6 (most tolerant): It's illegal to disfavour the out-group. The reason I mention this is that modern notions of religious tolerance target maximum tolerance (Tier 6 or whatever), but there's a lot of variety through history. For example, I think that persecution of Jews under the Romans was, in some cases, only because the Jews were unwilling to also in-form-only obey the dictates of Roman religion (2nd Commandment makes that tricky). Contrast that with Nazi persecution of Jews, which was much more aggressive about seeking them out. It's worth it to identify that one of those is more tolerant than the other, even if we wish for our society to be more tolerant than either of those. In that context, my understanding is that the Muslim law of the medieval period is pretty clear about tolerance, and that both Al-Andalus and Baghdad followed these rules. "People of the Book", i.e. non-Muslim monotheists, were granted a large set of very specific protections, while still being treated less well than Muslims. (Note that non-monotheists were not granted protections; I imagine that this did not result in much religious tolerance towards those people, but that's just a cynical guess.) These specific protections were strong enough that it made sense for non-conformist scholars (Christian or Jew, as long as they were monotheist) to migrate from Christendom to Dar al-Islam. Compared to modern west-coast notions of religious tolerance, this isn't great. But it's still remarkable and praiseworthy, especially in contrast with modern Sharia, and in contrast with then-contemporary Christian kingdoms. In summary: it's not that medieval Muslim states were tolerant by modern humanist standards. It's that they were more tolerant than modern Sharia Muslim states, and more tolerant than medieval Christian states.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  It is true that Muslim centers preserved some ancient Greek learning, but you overestimate this phenomenon and your depiction of the christianized Roman Empire destroying the classical tradition is inaccurate caricature. The reason we prize Muslim traditions for preserving Aristotle, for example, is not because the the Roman Empire post-Constantine had no interest in Greek learning, it is because Byzantine thought favored the rival (Neo-)platonism instead. The importance of Ancient Greek literature in the Byzantine Empire is readily evident from things like Homer remaining a cornerstone of Byzantine education all the way through the first millennium, and Christian polemicists starting to write in Attic Greek instead of the Koine. If you want to see just how much of the Greek tradition was preserved in the Christian world, and not the Muslim world, simply visit the Classical Philology section of any university library and look at the manuscript sources (including, yes, monastery copies) of any Oxford Classical Texts or Bibliotheca Teubneriana edition of Greek writers.
  - teleforce 6y ago
    I think you are the one who are incorrectly underestimating the contribution of Muslim empires and civilization in preserving ancient Greek learning and books. The Muslim centers are not only preserving ancient Greek learning and books, they are cherishing and enriching them for several hundreds years [1]. To them these ancient Greek books are equivalent of modern days da Vinci's paintings that can be weight in gold, literally no kidding. At the time, if you are doing translation of any Greek texts you can get paid by the weight of the translation in gold equivalent! Please tell me at any other time this is happening in any part of human history or even now. It's also reported that at one time, Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun was demanding an original copy of the Ptolemy's Almagest book as the condition of a truce between Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Empire. This is really something big because based on the saying of Muhammad that prophesizes any Muslim leader who can defeated and conquered Byzantine Empire (Constantinople) is the best leader ever. He basically abandoning this potential privilege title because of an original copy of Ptolemy's book. If you think he is too weak to defeat Byzantine and resorting to lame truce, please think again. He basically conquered and subjugated entire modern day Afghanistan for good, and only a few legendary leaders that even managed to do that including your beloved Alexander the Great. For the record, the mighty British Empire and USA did not manage to do just that. Al-Ma'mun is also the founder of the "House of Wisdom" where Al-Khwarizmi was the first director of the center and his name is very familiar because apparently the "algebra" and "algorithm" words were derived from his book title and his names, respectively. Because of his contribution to science one crater in the moon (Almanon) is named after him[2]. Believe it or not, according to some of modern historians, the extreme love for knowledge of the Abbasid Empire was partly blamed on the downfall of the Abbasid Empire at the expense of Islamic spirituality. This perhaps mainly due to the Islamic teaching that says after you're dead there are only three things that can increase you deeds in the hereafter. Firstly your God fearing children, secondly your donated and lively wealth for charity (waqaf) and thirdly your contributions to the knowledge that are beneficial to other people. [1]How Modern Science Came Into The World, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt45kddd https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt45kddd [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun

Those rules help the Church preserve the ancient knowledge until Gutenberg. As a Catholic, I'm devout of St. Benedict because the creation of monasteries have a huge impact of the human knowledge.

andrepd 6y ago

This is a widely known but misleading "fact". The truth is much more complicated. For one, an almost universally overlooked bit of history is how absolutely crucial muslim scholars were in preserving classical texts, in keeping an unbroken chain from the Classical Age until the Renaissance. Places like Al-Andalus -- muslim Iberia that is -- or Bagdhad, were the centres of knowledge in the world in their time, and also places of surprisingly high religious tolerance, where Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars studied and discussed together. Many translators and schools of translators were founded and supported, and that's the path countless Greek and Roman tomes took until our days: translated to Arabic, later "rediscovered" by the West. Among Christian monks, on the other hand, for centuries starting around 300-400CE the highest goal was asceticism, one of the corolaries of which was that one should waste no time studying or preserving pagan texts or indeed anything which were not: prayer books, missals, homilies, responsories, etc. An innumerable amount of works were lost during the centuries where Christian monasticism was most active. If indeed the monks preserved that ancient, pagan knowledge, then how can this be? Not to mention the fact that Christians post-Constantine and Theodosious were engaged in brutal and relentless persecution and suppression of non-Christians, so called "pagans", and pagan art, pagan temples, pagan beliefs, and of course, pagan literature. They burned temples and all the art therein, they burned libraries, they suppressed academies and professors, either by force or by ending the state's patronage, This paper is a great read, admittedly biased in its sources but not misleading (it cites contemporary opponents, rather than christians): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27899562.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27899562.pdf

cjameskeller 6y ago
True, but note also the influence of the (eastern) Roman Empire we now call the Byzantines, on the Renaissance, when Constantinople fell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissa...
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  Well one, no Ottomans, no fall of Byzantium, no Renaissance. :-) But more seriously, the Eastern Empire was in communication with their Muslim neighbors. For example, the iconoclastic controversy and the final resolution in favor of icons only makes sense in a context where your neighbors are much harder core than you are about idolatry and it’s embarrassing to the intelligentsia.
throwawayhist 6y ago
I think it's always important, when talking about Al-Alndalus - that even in works like The ornament, there is the temptation to selectively play up cooperative elements of the society and turning a blind eye to the fact that the general circumstances of the society are not one in which we as moderns would see as particularly 'multicultural' or 'tolerant' ; Scholars are good at holding these things in separation lay people generally muddle the two. Holding other religions as subservient classes is not in line with our ideals of modern religious tolerance. I think its somewhat inevitable that pagan works would be lost over the centuries, and less surprising that they would survive in dryer climates. Ultimately, I think to make the christians look particularly oppresive and destructive one has to overlook a lot of pagan violence. In the case of the islamic world, we can say for sure that there was a general destruction of churches, existing infrastructure and a general looting of most of the areas that came under islamic domination. And this is the pattern for the exchange of cultures nothing unusual. Taking the Dome of the Rock for an illustrative example - the Mosque at the dome of the rock began as a looted Marian shrine, built over the ancient roman temple which the romans themselves built over Herod's second temple.
- jholman 6y ago
  I think it's useful to understand religious intolerance in a few tiers. The following tier-list is a sketch, but I think illustrates the idea: Tier 1 (most intolerant): Suppress the out-group vigorously, including executions, torture, secret police, interrogations, etc. Tier 2: Suppress the out-group violently (executions) any time they're noisy, but don't seek them out. Tier 3: Disfavour the out-group, without permitting conversion. Tier 4: Disfavour the out-group, permitting them to convert. Tier 5: Disfavour the out-group socially and informally, but not in matters of enforced law. Tier 6 (most tolerant): It's illegal to disfavour the out-group. The reason I mention this is that modern notions of religious tolerance target maximum tolerance (Tier 6 or whatever), but there's a lot of variety through history. For example, I think that persecution of Jews under the Romans was, in some cases, only because the Jews were unwilling to also in-form-only obey the dictates of Roman religion (2nd Commandment makes that tricky). Contrast that with Nazi persecution of Jews, which was much more aggressive about seeking them out. It's worth it to identify that one of those is more tolerant than the other, even if we wish for our society to be more tolerant than either of those. In that context, my understanding is that the Muslim law of the medieval period is pretty clear about tolerance, and that both Al-Andalus and Baghdad followed these rules. "People of the Book", i.e. non-Muslim monotheists, were granted a large set of very specific protections, while still being treated less well than Muslims. (Note that non-monotheists were not granted protections; I imagine that this did not result in much religious tolerance towards those people, but that's just a cynical guess.) These specific protections were strong enough that it made sense for non-conformist scholars (Christian or Jew, as long as they were monotheist) to migrate from Christendom to Dar al-Islam. Compared to modern west-coast notions of religious tolerance, this isn't great. But it's still remarkable and praiseworthy, especially in contrast with modern Sharia, and in contrast with then-contemporary Christian kingdoms. In summary: it's not that medieval Muslim states were tolerant by modern humanist standards. It's that they were more tolerant than modern Sharia Muslim states, and more tolerant than medieval Christian states.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
It is true that Muslim centers preserved some ancient Greek learning, but you overestimate this phenomenon and your depiction of the christianized Roman Empire destroying the classical tradition is inaccurate caricature. The reason we prize Muslim traditions for preserving Aristotle, for example, is not because the the Roman Empire post-Constantine had no interest in Greek learning, it is because Byzantine thought favored the rival (Neo-)platonism instead. The importance of Ancient Greek literature in the Byzantine Empire is readily evident from things like Homer remaining a cornerstone of Byzantine education all the way through the first millennium, and Christian polemicists starting to write in Attic Greek instead of the Koine. If you want to see just how much of the Greek tradition was preserved in the Christian world, and not the Muslim world, simply visit the Classical Philology section of any university library and look at the manuscript sources (including, yes, monastery copies) of any Oxford Classical Texts or Bibliotheca Teubneriana edition of Greek writers.
- teleforce 6y ago
  I think you are the one who are incorrectly underestimating the contribution of Muslim empires and civilization in preserving ancient Greek learning and books. The Muslim centers are not only preserving ancient Greek learning and books, they are cherishing and enriching them for several hundreds years [1]. To them these ancient Greek books are equivalent of modern days da Vinci's paintings that can be weight in gold, literally no kidding. At the time, if you are doing translation of any Greek texts you can get paid by the weight of the translation in gold equivalent! Please tell me at any other time this is happening in any part of human history or even now. It's also reported that at one time, Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun was demanding an original copy of the Ptolemy's Almagest book as the condition of a truce between Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Empire. This is really something big because based on the saying of Muhammad that prophesizes any Muslim leader who can defeated and conquered Byzantine Empire (Constantinople) is the best leader ever. He basically abandoning this potential privilege title because of an original copy of Ptolemy's book. If you think he is too weak to defeat Byzantine and resorting to lame truce, please think again. He basically conquered and subjugated entire modern day Afghanistan for good, and only a few legendary leaders that even managed to do that including your beloved Alexander the Great. For the record, the mighty British Empire and USA did not manage to do just that. Al-Ma'mun is also the founder of the "House of Wisdom" where Al-Khwarizmi was the first director of the center and his name is very familiar because apparently the "algebra" and "algorithm" words were derived from his book title and his names, respectively. Because of his contribution to science one crater in the moon (Almanon) is named after him[2]. Believe it or not, according to some of modern historians, the extreme love for knowledge of the Abbasid Empire was partly blamed on the downfall of the Abbasid Empire at the expense of Islamic spirituality. This perhaps mainly due to the Islamic teaching that says after you're dead there are only three things that can increase you deeds in the hereafter. Firstly your God fearing children, secondly your donated and lively wealth for charity (waqaf) and thirdly your contributions to the knowledge that are beneficial to other people. [1]How Modern Science Came Into The World, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt45kddd https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt45kddd [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun