|
Post by beanstalk on Mar 19, 2017 9:19:27 GMT
“Beauty will save the world.” —Fyodor DostoevskyIf you've ever had any doubt that the middle ages were the highest point of culture that the Occident has yet reached, this thread will hopefully put them to rest. Of the many glories that this exalted era brought forth, one of the greatest must certainly be the production, at first by monks, then gradually through a more secular industry, of illuminated manuscripts. A single manuscript could take several years to complete, and some are absolute wonders of craftsmanship. I had the opportunity some time ago to have a firsthand look at a leaf taken from a XVth century Spanish psalter. I couldn't take my eyes off it, the calligraphy was so perfect and beautiful. A sense of tranquility emanated from it. It was a memorable experience. A few such manuscripts have been photographed in very good quality and are available to peruse here. It's one of the many graces of our time where so much beauty and information is readily available to anyone who desires to seek it. Here are a few items of particular interest, in my opinion: Book of Hours of the Blessed Virgin MaryThe Furtmeyr BibleGospel BookLamentations of the Prophet JeremiahLancelot, the Knight of the CartBook of Hours
|
|
|
Post by Jinxtengu on Mar 20, 2017 14:22:29 GMT
The clergy denounced literacy as heresy during the dark ages. They actively kept the populations of western Europe illiterate, in order so that no-one would question the religious doctrine. They wanted to kill Copernicus for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun. Sure, some fine works of art/architecture were produced occasionally, but these were only really meant as tools to inspire awe/brainwash the plebs. I don't see these writings as relevant to modern times, they seem merely as historical artifacts. Why do you have such a deep reverence for what's ostensibly just a cult of human sacrifice?
|
|
|
Post by beanstalk on Mar 27, 2017 18:55:13 GMT
The clergy denounced literacy as heresy during the dark ages. They actively kept the populations of western Europe illiterate, in order so that no-one would question the religious doctrine. Actually, literacy and education were reintroduced into medieval society from Catholic monasteries, who had kept the learning of antiquity alive after the fall of the Roman Empire, and cathedrals, where schools were formed teaching a curriculum that included grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. In fact the early universities developed around these cathedral schools. What was actually denounced as heresy was really just that, and I doubt you care much to read suppressed theological works claiming that God the Son is of a similar, but not identical, essence to God the Father. Or anything of the sort. They wanted to kill Copernicus for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun. You'll have to cite your sources on that one. Sure, some fine works of art/architecture were produced occasionally, but these were only really meant as tools to inspire awe/brainwash the plebs. I don't see these writings as relevant to modern times, they seem merely as historical artifacts. That's of course your prerogative, being an atheist. However, you should know that you're ascribing motives to the artists and builders that are ahistorical, and essentially pure fancy. Why do you have such a deep reverence for what's ostensibly just a cult of human sacrifice? Because Christ, fully man and fully God, was made sin He who knew no sin, and died for us while we were yet sinners in order that we may have eternal life.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxtengu on Mar 28, 2017 0:44:26 GMT
That's not true. The knowledge of antiquity, was mostly stolen by the crusades from the Islamic world, It was not 'kept alive in Catholic monasteries' as you say. Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_EuropeTransmission_of_the_Greek_ClassicsI don't have to do anything, this is my forum remember? Do you really believe the church would've been open to the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe? Well I would dispute that. Firstly, what evidence is there to prove that there even is a so called "god"? After you can satisfy that with an argument that isn't completely insane (Of which I know of no such argument) then you can explain how you know jesus to be fully "man and god", whatever that even means. I'm sure at the end of the day what it comes down to is; you believe because "the good book told me so", and also because your parents probably believe in the whole jesus fantasy themselves.
|
|
|
Post by beanstalk on Mar 28, 2017 2:21:54 GMT
The preservation of classical knowledge in monasteries is a well-attested to historical fact, so I'm not sure why you would try to deny that. As for contributions from the Islamic world, while they certainly did happen, they're not very relevant to the subject at hand which is the promotion (rather than suppression) of learning by the Church in the middle ages. I'd also like to point out that the propagation of this knowledge from the Islamic world to Europe didn't happen through stealing and plundering, but through cultural exchange. It says so in the first link that you posted: During the 11th and 12th centuries, many Christian scholars travelled to Muslim lands to learn sciences. Notable examples include Leonardo Fibonacci (c. 1170 –c. 1250), Adelard of Bath (c. 1080–c. 1152) and Constantine the African (1017–1087). From the 11th to the 14th centuries, numerous European students attended Muslim centers of higher learning (which the author calls "universities") to study medicine, philosophy, mathematics, cosmography and other subjects.[5]If you would like to read up on the subject of monastic schools: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastic_schoolI don't have to do anything, this is my forum remember? Do you really believe the church would've been open to the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe? You can do whatever it is that you want, but if you're gonna claim that the Church wanted to kill Copernicus, well that's gonna require some evidence as the claim is ridiculous. That absolutely didn't happen. I'll admit that the Copernican Revolution and its repercussions among the clergy is something I'm mostly ignorant about, but from my short research it seems to have caused the reaction you'd expect of any major scientific breakthrough: The full implications of his revolutionary ideas only began to sink in over the decades following the publication and slow dissemination of De Revolutionibus. Luther's sarcastic comments aside, Copernicus' ideas were seriously discussed in Lutheran as well as Catholic universities during subsequent years, both for and against (though mostly against at first). While in detail Copernicus' system used more circles than Ptolemy's, it did not use the equant, which was mathematically more challenging to use in practice. As a consequence, mathematically speaking the Copernican system was relatively easier to use. Indeed, computations based on the Copernican system were used to create accurate tables of planetary positions (the Prutenic Tables computed by Erasmus Reinhold), and Copernical computations were used in part of the Gregorian Calendar Reform of the 1570s. At issue at the time was whether one viewed Copernicus' Sun-centered system as merely a convenient computational artifice, or whether the Sun and not the Earth really was at the center. Copernicus clearly believed in the latter, but this conviction was muted by Osiander's preface to De Revolutionibus that suggested otherwise.
In many ways the initial cautious ambivalence of Catholic authorities is unsurprising. Copernicus was a loyal Catholic and a canon of Frauenberg Cathedral, making him a relatively minor member of the Catholic hierarchy. He had followed all of the proper procedures required to secure formal permission from Church authorities to publish his book, and he even dedicated it to the reigning Pope at the time (Paul III). That their response was ambivalent is not to say that the Church did not take the matter seriously, or fail to study it. By all accounts the Church did both. However, in the 16th century the Catholic Church found itself beset by many radical ideas, a number of which were direct and unambiguous frontal assaults upon its spiritual and political authority in Europe. So long as Copernicus' ideas remained a mathematical argument (in Latin) among scholars and did nothing to threaten either the beliefs of the common man or the Church's ultimate authority in such matters, the Church had no need to respond.Source: www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.htmlWell I would dispute that. Firstly, what evidence is there to prove that there even is a so called "god"? After you can satisfy that with an argument that isn't completely insane (Of which I know of no such argument) then you can explain how you know jesus to be fully "man and god", whatever that even means. I'm sure at the end of the day what it comes down to is; you believe because "the good book told me so", and also because your parents probably believe in the whole jesus fantasy themselves. I will gladly do what you ask, if you are genuinely interested. It will however have to be for another day, as the question is quite broad, and another thread. This is about illuminated manuscripts, after all.
|
|