11-08-2004, 09:13 PM
Aryaman,<br>
I think that you are oversimplifying the Church and its activity.<br>
Firstly, like any culture, the culture of the Church changed and developed over the centuries. Thus, the Church of the Sixteenth century that Luther railed against was not the same as the Church of the Sixth century when the opposing figures of Martin of Toures and St. Augustine were both active as missionaries, the first being restrained from his overzealous activities and the second encouraged on his peaceful activities by a conscientious and well meaning Pope Gregory. During the intervening thousand years a lot of water went under the bridge, and not all in the same direction.<br>
Secondly, although much learning was lost during the Fourth and Fifth centuries, probably the majority of it was destroyed by the effects of civil wars and invasions. There are few recorded instances of the Church actively destroying learning. True, the emperor Theodosious ordered the destruction of the library of Alexandria, but how much of the famous collection of the Third and Second centuries BC was left by then and what did the library of the Fourth century AD contain in any case. I have always been given to understand that the first (partial) destruction of the library took place during Mark Antony's defence of Alexandria against the Young Caesar (later known as Augustus), and more of its collection was destroyed by every war or natural disaster which came Alexandria's way from then on. We have no way of knowing whether the Fourth century library contained the works that every one of us on this board would love to know about and more, or just a bowdlerised collection of fashionable Third and Fourth century propaganda literature. Thus we do not know what, if any, valuable learning was destroyed on the orders of Theodosius. What we do know though, is that virtually all of the important (not to mention minor and less important) works to survive to our own time did so thanks to the fact that members of church orders felt it worth commiting months if not years to the act of copying them and thus preserving them. This included works of science as well, hence our knowledge of Galen, Pseudo Heron, Archimedes and others. Papyri from the sands of Egypt and wooden letters from Vindolanda are wonderful sources of information, but to the best of my knowledge none have yet turned up anything to rival Plato's Republic or Tacitus' Annals, to name but two. Obviously much more must have survived the burnings of the wars of the Third, Fourth and Fifth centuries than has survived to come down to us, but that does not mean it was maliciously destroyed. When I see books in a second hand shop I buy the ones which interest me and leave the rest. If the shop is flooded or burns down the next day it is not my fault. True, in this case it has been me who has selected the information which is to survive, but this does not make me responsible for the destruction of the rest. I see no reason to believe that the same did not happen 1400 years ago. The Church kept and copied the information which interested it and left the rest to others who were not necessarily so careful, or numerous enough, to preserve it. A modern example of this might be 'Chariots of the Gods', by Erik Von Daniken. Very few people these days would be likely to pick up 'Chariots of the Gods' if they saw it lying in the box of books free to a good home outside a charity shop. True, Von Daniken must still have followers, but whether any one of them would happen by in time to pick up the book before it was thrown away is open to speculation.<br>
Thirdly, the Church was not always against new learning and technology. Following the First Crusade a great deal of knowledge was brought back to Western Christendom which had been learned from the (Muslim) Arabs and Turks. The Church, along with all the kings, princes, councellors and exchequer officials, enthusiastically took on new ideas on numbers, accounting, calculation of time and probably a host of other things. Following this, the Church sponsored ever more ambitious projects to develop clocks, organs and large scale engineering projects. The Church of the Sixteenth century may have had a problem with new learning and imagination but the Church of the Eleventh and Twelfth centuries does not seem to have had.<br>
Fourthly, actively supporting absolutist governments was not seen as a bad thing until relatively recently. As late as the 1970s and 1980s citizens of the USSR were expected to support an absolutist government, as citizens of China are still expected to. Absolutist government might seem a long way off to those of us in the West, but the Civil War of the 1640s did not free England from absolutist government. It merely replaced one absolutist government with another so much worse that the old one was invited back. Absolutist government came to an end for much of Europe in 1848 and for much of the rest of it in 1918, although Germany went back to it until 1945 and Russia until 1990.<br>
Fifthly, "hysterical ideas against sex". Sometimes maybe: in retrospect it seems like a bad idea to force people to be celibate, but then again, many chose it willingly and at least those people didn't end up passing syphillis on to their friends and nieghbours.<br>
<br>
Anyway, back on topic, I don't believe that Caesar went to Gaul to spread romanitas and civilisation. Like everyone else, he must have known that the Celts were in the habit of throwing vast amounts of gold and silver into ponds and streams to placate a sky full of hungry gods. He had planned a war against the tribes of Illiricum (demonstrated by the fact that he already had two legions mustered near the border with Illiricum which he then had to request to come west) but when the Helvetii gave him the thinnest of excuses for doing so he changed his plans and invaded Gaul, probably fully aware that if he could conquer even a part of Gaul he would have the chance to drag the ponds and streams and turn the treasure thus won into cold hard cash which would buy him power and influence back in Rome. Caesar did not go to Gaul to spread civilisation (as the Nervii were to find out) but rather to make himself rich and buy himself an unbeatable base of political support.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>
I think that you are oversimplifying the Church and its activity.<br>
Firstly, like any culture, the culture of the Church changed and developed over the centuries. Thus, the Church of the Sixteenth century that Luther railed against was not the same as the Church of the Sixth century when the opposing figures of Martin of Toures and St. Augustine were both active as missionaries, the first being restrained from his overzealous activities and the second encouraged on his peaceful activities by a conscientious and well meaning Pope Gregory. During the intervening thousand years a lot of water went under the bridge, and not all in the same direction.<br>
Secondly, although much learning was lost during the Fourth and Fifth centuries, probably the majority of it was destroyed by the effects of civil wars and invasions. There are few recorded instances of the Church actively destroying learning. True, the emperor Theodosious ordered the destruction of the library of Alexandria, but how much of the famous collection of the Third and Second centuries BC was left by then and what did the library of the Fourth century AD contain in any case. I have always been given to understand that the first (partial) destruction of the library took place during Mark Antony's defence of Alexandria against the Young Caesar (later known as Augustus), and more of its collection was destroyed by every war or natural disaster which came Alexandria's way from then on. We have no way of knowing whether the Fourth century library contained the works that every one of us on this board would love to know about and more, or just a bowdlerised collection of fashionable Third and Fourth century propaganda literature. Thus we do not know what, if any, valuable learning was destroyed on the orders of Theodosius. What we do know though, is that virtually all of the important (not to mention minor and less important) works to survive to our own time did so thanks to the fact that members of church orders felt it worth commiting months if not years to the act of copying them and thus preserving them. This included works of science as well, hence our knowledge of Galen, Pseudo Heron, Archimedes and others. Papyri from the sands of Egypt and wooden letters from Vindolanda are wonderful sources of information, but to the best of my knowledge none have yet turned up anything to rival Plato's Republic or Tacitus' Annals, to name but two. Obviously much more must have survived the burnings of the wars of the Third, Fourth and Fifth centuries than has survived to come down to us, but that does not mean it was maliciously destroyed. When I see books in a second hand shop I buy the ones which interest me and leave the rest. If the shop is flooded or burns down the next day it is not my fault. True, in this case it has been me who has selected the information which is to survive, but this does not make me responsible for the destruction of the rest. I see no reason to believe that the same did not happen 1400 years ago. The Church kept and copied the information which interested it and left the rest to others who were not necessarily so careful, or numerous enough, to preserve it. A modern example of this might be 'Chariots of the Gods', by Erik Von Daniken. Very few people these days would be likely to pick up 'Chariots of the Gods' if they saw it lying in the box of books free to a good home outside a charity shop. True, Von Daniken must still have followers, but whether any one of them would happen by in time to pick up the book before it was thrown away is open to speculation.<br>
Thirdly, the Church was not always against new learning and technology. Following the First Crusade a great deal of knowledge was brought back to Western Christendom which had been learned from the (Muslim) Arabs and Turks. The Church, along with all the kings, princes, councellors and exchequer officials, enthusiastically took on new ideas on numbers, accounting, calculation of time and probably a host of other things. Following this, the Church sponsored ever more ambitious projects to develop clocks, organs and large scale engineering projects. The Church of the Sixteenth century may have had a problem with new learning and imagination but the Church of the Eleventh and Twelfth centuries does not seem to have had.<br>
Fourthly, actively supporting absolutist governments was not seen as a bad thing until relatively recently. As late as the 1970s and 1980s citizens of the USSR were expected to support an absolutist government, as citizens of China are still expected to. Absolutist government might seem a long way off to those of us in the West, but the Civil War of the 1640s did not free England from absolutist government. It merely replaced one absolutist government with another so much worse that the old one was invited back. Absolutist government came to an end for much of Europe in 1848 and for much of the rest of it in 1918, although Germany went back to it until 1945 and Russia until 1990.<br>
Fifthly, "hysterical ideas against sex". Sometimes maybe: in retrospect it seems like a bad idea to force people to be celibate, but then again, many chose it willingly and at least those people didn't end up passing syphillis on to their friends and nieghbours.<br>
<br>
Anyway, back on topic, I don't believe that Caesar went to Gaul to spread romanitas and civilisation. Like everyone else, he must have known that the Celts were in the habit of throwing vast amounts of gold and silver into ponds and streams to placate a sky full of hungry gods. He had planned a war against the tribes of Illiricum (demonstrated by the fact that he already had two legions mustered near the border with Illiricum which he then had to request to come west) but when the Helvetii gave him the thinnest of excuses for doing so he changed his plans and invaded Gaul, probably fully aware that if he could conquer even a part of Gaul he would have the chance to drag the ponds and streams and turn the treasure thus won into cold hard cash which would buy him power and influence back in Rome. Caesar did not go to Gaul to spread civilisation (as the Nervii were to find out) but rather to make himself rich and buy himself an unbeatable base of political support.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
