Main Points

History is Now

The Medieval Era saw the religious persecution of learning and scholars. Illiterate barbarians destroyed Rome and Roman culture and the unfortunate survivors had to struggle through the darkness of ignorance for a thousand years before the light of learning was once again relit. Or so the historians of the Italian Renaissance wanted to believe. Like many myths, this is a truth perpetuated in many books including textbooks which ought to know better. Certainly Rome was a major power and its history is fascinating, but for some people its military history and great conquerors are a blinding light which hide the very real problems of the Empire. So in the spirit of "Things your School Textbook Got Wrong". I'm going to explore the Myth of the Dark Ages.

It should also be noted that the Dark Ages reflects a significant cultural bias. The Arabs of the Middle East, the Gupta of India, and the Tang Dynasty Chinese of the Medieval Era reached their most dramatic heights in learning and the arts, outshining the developments that their cultures had made during the Ancient Era. So the coming of the Dark Ages was not typically a early Medieval phenomenon, the decline in learning was usually something which happened in the late Medieval period, if it happened at all - learning and education maintained their popularity among the Chinese throughout the Medieval period. Indeed, it was not even a European phenomenon, but a Western European phenomenon; the early Medieval period saw the Roman Empire from Constantinople build the most advanced, most artistic culture in Europe. However, none of the Italian historians who popularized this myth had much interest in those areas. It's important to understand that even for the authors of the myth of the Dark Ages, it was a term applied in the narrow geographical sense to a period in Western European history.

I should note my bias here. The term Dark Ages particularly irritates me. That may be obvious to you since this is the first specific page written for Earth Chronicle that does not deal with administrative issues or with larger macro-history. While there were certainly ways in which the Medieval period represented a step backward for learning, Medieval states were clearly a step forward in terms of cultural development. On the battlefield, when Medieval states challenged Ancient Era powers, they consistently emerged victorious. In peace, Medieval religions consistently trumped Ancient Era philosophy. While the secular arts declined significantly in the Medieval Era and even if we ignore the revolutionary community which religion formed for the first time in world history, there were many other ways in which the people of the Medieval Era were studying, learning, and developing new skills that would have amazed any Roman. And they were bringing civilization to wildernesses that even the greatest of the Ancient Era powers could not dream possible.

[chroniclemaster1, 2010/06/04]

The Renaissance

The European Renaissance was one of the most innovative periods of development in world history, on par with the Warring States period of China (480 - 221 BC) and China's own Renaissance under the emperors of the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279 AD). Its scholars, primarily led by the Italians embraced something which only the Ancient Greeks had previously achieved. They simultaneously fed themselves on the lessons of the past while looking forward and expanding them for their own time and the future. A formal liberal arts education including literacy became assumed, at least among the reasonably wealthy. Not surprisingly, one of the things these Italians looked back on most fondly was the age of Roman hegemony in the Ancient Era when learning was similarly embraced. And this deeply colored their world view.

Learning reemerged during the Renaissance, in large measure because nationalism emerged as a similar ideology to religion. Where Christianity always looked down on learning as a failure of faith, nationalism saw the benefits that learning could impart to the nation. Thus nationalism and the learning it fostered were the first major challenges to Christianity since its emergence in 313 AD under the Roman Emperor Constantine. And the church did not take this assault lying down.

This was the age of the Spanish Inquisition, the age when the French crown outlawed the printing press to prevent alternative political viewpoints from challenging royal doctrines, the age when a traveler might be put to death in a small town because he was discovered to be carrying a book in Greek which marked him as either a scholar or a magician (and in many places, the two things were deemed equivalent in any case). In short the church fought back viciously and tried to move all its supporters to the suppression of these trends. While rulers could not be motivated to reign in the nationalism that so directly benefited them, the church was able to mount an effective crusade in many nations against learning and education. The new champions of learning were not simply fighting for their beliefs, many were literally fighting for their lives.

And so the Italian historians, the lovers and writers of books, began to write about the history of Europe and the story they told was directly colored by their own history. In their writings, they looked back on the Ancient Era as a glorious period of learning, when Romans and Greeks championed knowledge and lived rich secular lives free of religious interference. Then came the Germanic barbarians. A cold and lonely day in 410 AD was cited in glaringly anti-Catholic terms. A day when the Visigoths sacked Rome and destroyed the golden age. And the next day, the church assumed control and everyone in Europe woke up stupid. These were the Dark Ages which had consumed Europe for a thousand years. And now in the Renaissance, Italian scholars felt were quite literally fighting the same battle all over again, a battle between the light of learning and the darkness of ignorance with the fate of all Europe hanging in the balance.

While Italian scholars were not always the more powerful, it is not always the winner who writes the history; sometimes it is the one who really likes to write. The church championed its cause vigorously, but to later ages, the Italian historians who wrote the books were a group dominated by scholars devoted to learning. Thus in their stories, the Germans were the villains against the bright light of Rome, and the church was their willing supporter who imposed centuries of ignorance on the continent.

Greece and Rome

When viewed from the standpoint of the Renaissance scholars, fighting for their lives against a desperate church, the narrative certainly makes sense. Historians projected onto the collapse of Rome their own worst nightmares in the present. While this is logical and understandable, it is certainly not a cogent analysis of the Ancient Era.

In 507 BC, Athens rioted. Spurred on by one of the minor city's most prominent oligarchs, Athens overthrew their dictator, and formed the world's first democracy. The consequences of this political change in a city in the hinterlands of Greece, in the hinterlands of Europe, on the outermost edge of the influence of the great Formative Era civilizations, could not have been imagined. If written as a work of fiction, no one would believe it. But despite raising many of the most powerful Greek city states against it, Athens survived prospered and ultimately emerged as the foremost of the Greek city states. Despite raising the outrage of the mightiest empire of their time, the Achmenid Persians, the Greeks went toe to toe with their adversaries in open combat and each time decisively defeated the otherwise unbeaten armies which had conquered virtually all other states of the known world. With destiny seemingly on their side, the Greeks earned a fearsome reputation and won the admiration and respect of powers throughout the world.

They put their reputation to good use. With curiosity taking Greek merchants and sightseers across the known world, Greek culture, philosophy, and institutions absorbed international lessons and influenced every people they came into contact with. The Greek love of discussion and joy in learning defined their culture, and as they absorbed the combined lessons and read the collected writings of the entire Formative Era, they began to think it natural that people would discover new things. They began to think it was natural that people would write about their discoveries. And so Greeks began doing both of these things, studying like no other culture in the history of the planet, reformulating and deriving new lessons from the old, and setting them down so that the next generation inherited an expanded body of wisdom on which to build.

Like all things, the Greeks did not last forever. Their culture eventually succumbed to the political intrigue of the Persian emperors, and power in the Mediterranean passed to the Macedonians. The Macedonians under Alexander the Great spread Greek culture throughout the Middle East to the doorstep of India. Persian, Egyptian, and Greek ideas and discoveries merged into a vibrant international culture from 300 BC on. Then around 200 BC, the Romans began infiltrating the Balkans and a critical developmental phase in Roman culture began.

The Romans were dedicated to their armies. Military discipline, the stoic acceptance of fate, and shrewd political acumen characterized this hard nose group of senators who ruled the Republic. However, it was also a diverse body and as a significant faction of Rome absorbed Greek culture, Greek culture became an important trend in Roman life. This created a strong conflict between those who favored the traditional Roman virtues and those who valued the vibrant intellectual life of Greece. The result was a fusion. Roman religion and art, especially architecture were deeply informed by Greek models. Many important Romans came to believe that a Greek-style education was essential training for any statesman, typically obtained from a Greek slave who was highly respected in the household.

However, while Romans studied Greek models and learned Greek education, they never expanded on it. The books which poured out of the Greek and Macedonian cultures detailing new ideas and discoveries never materialized under Rome. At least part of this was due to Rome's lack of genuine interest in the outside world. When it came to Anatolia, Gaul, or Syria, conquest? Absolutely the Romans were interested. When it came to getting to know them and building a dynamic culture together, the Romans just couldn't muster energy.

Throughout the Roman Republic, the conquered territories in Eastern Europe continued to speak Greek and embraced the same international culture championed by the Macedonians hundreds of years before. Latin was only ever used as a language of administration, used by the wealthy and those eager to curry favor with Rome, but not by society at large. For the average citizens on the street, Rome was just the name of the latest tax collector, which otherwise had little influence on local populations.

Then the Roman Republic fell. Caesar Augustus took the title Imperator, the origin of the modern word emperor, and founded the monarchical Roman Empire. Whatever influence learning had in Roman culture was diminished when a vital active participation in government was fundamentally minimized. Henceforth, only the emperors would exercise real power in Rome, and it did not encourage those seeking advancement to spend time cultivating a Greek education. A military career in the army was a much more effective way to gain power and prestige. While Rome was still a culture deeply influenced by the Greeks, especially in the outward and artistic forms, the weaknesses of Medieval Europe were all present and well entrenched in Roman civilization during the Ancient Era.

The Medieval Era

Constantine's conversion to Christianity and subsequent Edict of Milan in 313 AD formally indicated the arrival of religion in the world of the Romans. Stoicism had been the quintessentially Roman philosophy, and it had became ever more relevant to people who saw their freedom slipping away with little they could realistically do about it. "Why worry? Accept the dictates of fate" seems to have been Roman culture's answer to the crisis of Empire. Christianity was so successful among the Romans because it so neatly put a religious wrapper around stoic ideas, allowing it and the many Stoics to be absorbed into Christianity.

While the church did not see learning in a very positive light, the Romans had already turned their backs on learning for learning's sake, which was essentially a Greek passion. It is no coincidence that the Renaissance Italians, who were mourning the loss of learning, studied at the feet of the Greek scholars who had fled the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. The Greeks had never lost learning in the East the way it had disappeared in Western Europe; in fact this was history repeating itself, for the Romans had learned most of what they knew at the feet of Greek prisoners and slaves who were brought back from the Roman campaigns in Greece circa 200 BC. The Germanic barbarians and / or the Christian church were not responsible for the ways in which certain kinds of learning were devalued, nor was it even a Medieval Era phenomenon but had its roots in Ancient Era Roman society.

Moreover, it was only in specific areas that the Medieval Era saw a decline in learning. The liberal arts were largely decimated. Rhetoric, math, astronomy, history, reading, and writing had once made up the core of a Roman education (and merely the beginning of a Greek education). All these studies were largely set aside for the more important business of battle, religion, and politics. Books declined in importance. However, it should be noted that here too, the problem was largely one begun by the Romans. During the Ancient Era, education was not especially widespread. Only with the advent of Greek democracy and the Roman Republic did it become truly important for a large proportion of society to receive an extensive education including full literacy. When the Republic was set aside by the Roman emperors, only the bureaucracy required such an education and it was already in full retreat by 313 AD. However, these were true liabilities for Medieval Europe.

However, the practical studies like farming, architecture, and politics certainly continued to evolve. Farming was perhaps the most important, as the new understanding of animal biology caused farmers to develop entirely new farming tools with the help of skilled Medieval artisans; the result was that horses for the first time were used to their full potential. Earlier civilizations had relied on oxen to do their work, but with more sophisticated Medieval equipment, horses which were much stronger became the dominant animal used in farm labor. More advanced systems of crop rotation and sophisticated shared fields that could be worked fairly by an entire village came into use. This maximized the agricultural value of local land, which made previously unusable wilderness suitable for agriculture. It also provided a measure of sustainability for land under cultivation for the next thousand years. The result was that small towns became larger and previously deserted wilderness gave rise to villages expanding the land available for settlement, the population, and the economy.

Art too flourished. The Germanic tribes were master smiths of gold and enamel. They constructed geometric and highly abstract designs on a host of largely practical personal objects and pieces of jewelry. The Sutton Hoo ship burial is one of the most impressive discoveries of these art pieces and shows the highly advanced state of Germanic craftsmanship. Painting thrived as well, especially in the Medieval monasteries. Perhaps the most famous expression of this artwork was the illuminated manuscripts that combined painting and gold leaf into ornately stylized, minutely detailed works of art. An entire monastery might devote decades to the preparation of one complete illuminated manuscript.

Roman architecture is rightly admired the world over; yet before 1100 AD, Roman styles were being adapted, construction techniques were being improved, and ever taller buildings were being erected; Romanesque architecture showed clear stylistic links to the older Roman models, but the improving technology allowed more creativity and more impressive buildings, especially churches. Then in 1140 AD, Medieval builders created their own revolutionary breakthrough: the pointed "Gothic" arch and it's associated "groin vault". These were much more flexible elements that allowed new possibilities in architecture.

Soon after, the flying buttress was developed to address entirely new physics in construction as Medieval European masters dealt with building taller structures than any Roman had ever dreamed. Nor were these techniques lost in a vacuum. Inspired by the same zeal that found its way into Gregorian chant and illuminated manuscripts, these new architectural elements were combined into one of the most inspired designs in world history; the Gothic cathedral: Solid foundations, delicate arches, legions of traceries and sculptural decorations, soaring spires and naves so tall that worshipers inside felt the spiritual presence of the Lord.

Nor were these even the most distinctive features of the Gothic cathedrals; their crowning jewels had nothing to do with their architecture. Medieval Europe developed the most sophisticated stained glass working of any previous or contemporary civilization; the beautifully solid stone and intricate decorations created a dark canvas upon which Medieval artists literally played with light, creating deeply spiritual spaces. Thus, all these new developments in architecture and glass making found their perfect expression when drawn together into a balanced, integrated, awesome whole. Their profound spirituality is the only explanation why even relatively modest towns attempted to raise these dangerous to construct, enormously difficult, enormously expensive monoliths to religion; especially when you consider that cathedrals took so long to build that no one who began the job of building or paying for it would ever see the work even half finished. Yet despite the cost, cathedrals of the Medieval Era now dot hundreds of locations throughout Europe.

The cathedrals even became the home of religious schools called cathedral schools or universities - the modern institutions of higher education comes directly from these unlikely religious origins. In fact, throughout the Medieval period, priests were important not only because of the religious benefits they brought to a shrewd ruler; they received the most advanced education on the continent. This was deeply at odds with the Renaissance perception because the Renaissance Era church was deeply at odds with the new scholars who wrote the histories. However, priests trained in all the arts of learning - including reading and writing - which were necessary to ensure the livelihood of a continent spanning institution like the Catholic Church. Their education was a key reason that the church became so critical to the new Germanic rulers, because priests had the administrative skills necessary run the political bureaucracy.

So although the forms of education changed significantly, the church was the preserver of education and learning. As a minor point, it should also be noted that the church did teach a number of things which Renaissance scholars never truly gave them credit for. The church taught logic along the Greek model and even some rhetoric, though certainly not to the extent traditional among the Greeks and Romans. Literature too was practiced extensively, so passionately in fact that most of the old books of Ancient literature were scraped clean for reuse. (Ancient and Medieval books were written on parchment which was a specially prepared form of tough thin leather, and the top layers could be scraped off eliminating most of the original writing and allowing the parchment to be reused. Ink soaks through parchment and the dim remnants of the letters could still be made out but it was usable. In fact, a number of Ancient texts were saved by later historians who recovered the original text from between the letters of the Medieval texts written on top of them.) As you can imagine the destruction of thousands of Ancient texts was one more thing that did not sit well with men dedicated to learning.

Renaissance scholars did not give much credit to their Medieval counterparts for preserving these techniques because they considered the products of their work ridiculous. While deeply important to Medieval scholars, the treatises they wrote to demonstrate logic involved religious minutiae that ranged from the tedious to the ridiculous; one of the greatest questions of the period which spawned a flood of treatises was how many angels could dance on the head of pin. Similarly, while literature flourished, 95% of the output were a uniquely Medieval genre, saints lives. One strike against these works is that they were fairly universally boring, meant to instruct in proper Christian saintly behavior rather than to entertain. The second strike against them is that they were almost universally plagiarized word for word from books on the lives of other saints. Since God was one, and the trinity was one, the logic went that all saints were also one. So it was not considered accurate to speak of the "lives of the saints" but the "life of the saints". Therefore, when constructing the "spiritual truth" of a new saint's life, most of the material was copied out of other saints lives. Having studied some of these works, I can sympathize with the feelings of the Renaissance scholars, yet the church did preserve logic and a thriving literary tradition which were things that scholars of the Renaissance would embrace and make their own.

This era of history has had a difficult time shaking off its initial bad reputation. Certainly, learning and education as they were understood in the Ancient Era, suffered very real setbacks in Western Europe during the Medieval Era. However, the Renaissance characterizations were blatantly influenced by Renaissance history, not an accurate view of the history that had gone before. These were neither the Dark Ages - when people were stupid - nor the Middle Ages - some irrelevant time period between the golden ages of Rome and the Renaissance. While Renaissance historians had some truth and a lot of contemporary anger against the church that they were working through, the Medieval Era was a critical developmental phase in European history (as in all other geographic regions) without which the Renaissance would have been impossible.