Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, March 07, 2013

Historians in the 1800s referred to the Dark Ages as a time of illiteracy and barbarianism, generally pinpointing the time period as between the fall of the Roman Empire and somewhere in the Middle Ages. To some, the Dark Ages didn't end until the 1400s, at the advent of the Renaissance.

But modern historians see the Middle Ages quite differently. That's because continued scholarship has found that the medieval period wasn't so ignorant after all.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Tor

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"The first example of one of these "holy autopsies" came in 1308, when nuns conducted a dissection of the body of Chiara of Montefalco, an abbess who would be canonized as a saint in 1881. The nuns reported finding a tiny crucifix in the abbess' heart, as well as three gallstones in her gallbladder, which they saw as symbolic of the Holy Trinity."

Imo, these nuns were imitating medical dissection they had witnessed. "Holy Trinity", how galling.:]

#1 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-03-07 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Holy Autopsy, Batman, Quincy has escaped!"

#2 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

The sneerers who coined the phrase "Dark Ages" were almost all educated in the universities founded by the Church during those ages, too.

#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-07 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Saeculum obscurum" anyone?

#4 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Harry, do you ever engage in discussion or is every post a sneer?

The formation of all we call Western Civilization happened in this period. The "Dark Ages" were not dark because of the Church, which was slowly converting Europe from paganism and various, sometimes very ugly, heresies. It was not as if Constantine (the Arian heretic) had unleashed a tyranny upon all Europe in the form of a military Roman Catholic Church and all the continent instantly changed.
Nope. The Chruch took almost until the 13th Century to find any real ascendancy in Europe. That is fact, not sneer.

Then the culture actually grew, especially through the universities the Church founded and Her efforts at almost all times to keep the kings and princes from warring.

Go ahead, sneer again, but at least Wiki before you make a fool of yourself. Even better, read a history book.

#5 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-07 11:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Saeculum obscurum?

Wasn't that a term from the 1600's by a historian who couldn't find enough records from the time period so he was in the dark about them?

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-07 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Saeculum Obscurum

en.wikipedia.org

Saeculum obscurum (Latin: the dark age) is a name given to a period in the history of the Papacy during the first half of the 10th century, beginning with the installation of Pope Sergius III in 904 and lasting for sixty years until the death of Pope John XII in 964. During this period, the Popes were influenced strongly by a powerful and corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti, and their relatives.[1]

The period was first identified and named by the Italian Cardinal and ecclesiastical historian Caesar Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici in the sixteenth century.[2] Baronius' primary source for his history of this period was Liutprand of Cremona. Other scholars have dated the period more broadly or narrowly, and other terms, such as the Pornocracy (German: Pornokratie, from Greek pornokratiā, "prostitute rule") and the Rule of the Harlots (German: Hurenregiment), were coined by Protestant German theologians in the nineteenth century.

Historian Will Durant refers to the period from 867 to 1049 as the "nadir of the papacy".[3]

1. Brook, Lindsay (2003). "Popes and Pornocrats: Rome in the early middle ages". Foundations 1 (1): 5–21.

2. Dwyer, John C. (1998). Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity. Mahwah, USA.: Paulist Press.. p. 155. ISBN 0-8091-3830-1.

3. Durant, Will. The Age of Faith. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972. p. 537

#7 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-07 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Okay, Mad, I already knew that. Look at the dates in the Durant reference (867 to 1049)! The Roman Catholic Church did not gain a solid lead in Europe until the 13th Century.
To call the evolving centuries of the Church a dark age is an understandable phrase before then as far as even a Catholic might see it. They were overcoming darkness then: Druids, Thule, Arianism etc.
But to use "The Dark Ages" as is the practice since the Reformation implies they were dark because of the Catholic Church. It is nonsense. You are playing a word game. The "Dark Ages" you think about are not the 'dark age' you use others to cite above.

#8 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-08 12:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

But to use "The Dark Ages" as is the practice since the Reformation implies they were dark because of the Catholic Church. It is nonsense. You are playing a word game. The "Dark Ages" you think about are not the 'dark age' you use others to cite above.
#8 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-08 12:17 AM
------

I am not playing any games with you Diablo. I was answering TOR's question in #6: "Wasn't that a term from the 1600's by a historian who couldn't find enough records from the time period so he was in the dark about them?"

But, since you bring up the topic of games, what game are you playing, Diablo?

#9 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-08 12:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Diablo, which of the games are you playing?

Is it the game: Let's see if I can hijack at least 50% of the threads today by 3am?

Or is it the game: Let's see if I can troll at least 50% of the threads by 3am and see who bites, and if I can coax them into a flamewar?

Or is it this game: Let's see how many threads I can hijack today, introduce non sequiturs of abortion, God, the RC Church, and get people in trouble for commenting on my trolling?

#10 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-08 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then the culture actually grew, especially through the universities the Church founded and Her efforts at almost all times to keep the kings and princes from warring.

Well, from warring amongst themselves at least.

Even better, read a history book.

I bet you have a few, published by the church no doubt, to recommend!

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-08 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Chruch took almost until the 13th Century to find any real ascendancy in Europe."

Well, the Moors were pretty much kicking their a$$es on a regular basis from 900 on.

#12 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-08 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Harry being good and invading others homelands is rarely something to be proud of.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-08 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look up the history of Spain prior to Ferdinand and Isabella. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all living together in harmony. Ask the Jews how that whole Spanish Inquisition thing turned out.

#14 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-08 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

How was it that Muslims got into Spain again?

Oh right they invaded.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-08 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hardly odd behavior for the time period, though, Tor.
The Visigoths, Vandals, and Romans had all done the same thing.

Come to think of it, it's hardly odd behavior even for a century ago.

#16 | Posted by TheTom at 2013-03-08 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh Tom you've opened up a can of worms.

If what the Muslims did was ok just about any invasion or mass slaughter is ok.

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-08 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, it's not about "okay".
It's that they didn't do anything different, at least in terms of invading, except doing it better than their contemporaries.
To say nothing of what the Caliphate of Cordoba evolved into, especially in terms of culture and science.
And Harry makes a valid point, although I disagree with him on "living in harmony".

#18 | Posted by TheTom at 2013-03-08 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tom the funny thing about history is that those who right more truthfully tend to end up looking bad when compared to those who white wash their history.

There are of course some parts of history that we should all be ashamed of and others that we should be ashamed to be ignorant of.

Case in point is this story of a Christian Scientist and a Nobel Calaphate (sp) in Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org

Humanity owes these two so much yet they are almost forgotten.

#19 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-08 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The sneerers who coined the phrase "Dark Ages" were almost all educated in the universities founded by the Church during those ages, too."

I'm not sure if it started out as a sneer so much as a description of the authors lack of knowledge.

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-08 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I meant the post Reformation use of the word, Tor. Thanks for the correction.
To say "Dark Ages" these days makes the Harry and Doc types flash mental images of horrible tortures of ignorant peasants before the nailing of the theses to the door and the triumph of reason put an end to it all and opened the doors for humane reforms like abortion.
Puerile, but that's how they think.

#21 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-08 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Diablo if you ever encounter anyone claiming that there was no science or reasoning in that era ask them if they've ever heard of occams razor. If they have then inform them that William of Ockham (who devised it) was born in the 13th century.

#22 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-10 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement