Middle Ages

[Anonymous No.17680213]

Why does no one seem to care about medieval literature? Is it because the enlightenment convinced everyone nothing of value was produced in that time period or some other reason?

[Anonymous No.17680232]

It's because it produced a lot of boring dogshit like in your pic
It did have its fair share of good works to be fair but there's so much better literature that it's worth anyone's time

[Anonymous No.17680248]

>>17680213
Because most people think the middle ages were some type of dark period of anarchy and violence, a view fabricated by the romantics. They fail to look at any new contemporary historians who talk about the middle ages. The middle ages might not have produced much literature but they were extremely keen on preserving the past. As seen by the Carolingian Renaissance and the Byzantines.

Bernard De Chartres:
“We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.”

[Anonymous No.17680251]

Because 99% of it was church related. 99% of the remaining 1% were chronicles that sucked the dick of [current dear leader of the region].

[Anonymous No.17680256]

Chr*sti*n*ty was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.17680262]

>>17680213
This has to be more problematic than Dr. Seuss right? Isn't most medieval lit about unsolicited sexual harassment or racial violence?

[Anonymous No.17680282]

>>17680213
I care. In fact I just finished reading Marco Polo's Book of the Marvels of the World and will soon read Rutebeuf's complete works (I just need a break from Old French).

[Anonymous No.17680285]

>>17680248
>fabricated by the romantics
It was fabricated by early modern philosophers like Rousseau and Voltaire. Romanticism was actually a reaction against that kind of dry rationalism.

[Anonymous No.17680298]

>>17680285
Yah you're right. I mixed it up.

[Anonymous No.17680320]

>>17680262
It featured the opposite of sexual harassment. Women were idealized to a fault, troubadours practically grovelled at their feet for affection and they couldn't even reveal their names on the poems.

[Anonymous No.17680331]

>>17680213
Basically >>17680248 is right, and medieval lit and philosophy is massively underrated in common consciousness. Our image of the Middle Ages is something close to Games of Thrones (the show, not the books), when GoT mostly highlights the worst parts of some of the worst eras of the Middle Age. For instance, in philosophy, check this out:

>https://historyofphilosophy.net/

An excellent series of podcast on the history of philosophy, done by a tenured historian of philosophy, that covers most of Western philosophy from Thales to the Renaissance included (plus a section on Indian philosophy and another on African philosophy).
You'll notice that the longest sections are on Western Medieval and Muslim Medieval philosophy (which happen to be the eras of expertise of the host). Each episodes has recommended reading and every five episodes or so there's a guest scholar invited to speak on the era of interest.

There is enough medieval lit and phil for a lifetime if you care to look.

[Anonymous No.17680333]

>>17680320
That's fin'amor, but not everything in medieval lit is like that at all.

[Anonymous No.17680336]

>>17680213
Lots of people care about medieval literature. Simon Armitage translated gawain for god's sake. The problem is that its really inaccessible because of the spelling and grammar (or language if you go back far enough), and there are simply better ways to spend your time unless you're really into medieval. My medieval supervisor at cambridge was basically just a LARPer and used to make bows and knit stuff and shit. Those are the only people who are actually going to resonate with the literature. Translations are garbage too, i never understoof how anyone could write a good essay using the OWC editions for example.

[Anonymous No.17680340]

>>17680320
Troubadour poetry was an idealization though, in practice it would have been unwise to expect men to behave by the standards of courtly songs, even in the high classes.

[Anonymous No.17680352]

>>17680285
>>17680298
That being said the romantics also created a false vision of middle-age with it being full of nice courtship and noble jousting.

[Anonymous No.17680371]

medieval poetry is very enjoyable once you get used to middle english orthography, i prefer it to a lot of what came later

[Anonymous No.17680374]

>>17680320
Sounds like something to call HR about. The occitaincels had to hide their names so they didn't get cancelled.

[Anonymous No.17680380]

>>17680256

[Anonymous No.17680389]

>>17680320
>>17680333
see picrel

[Anonymous No.17680404]

>>17680213
>Why does no one seem to care about medieval literature?
I'm sick of reading christfaggot bullshit, especially revolving around primitive or extremely samey living such as was the case in the medieval period

[Anonymous No.17680429]

>>17680248
Contemporary historians funded by the EU to push a highly retarded and narrative and who have yet to produce a serious response to Ward-Perkins who shows with actual evidence rather than insane speculations of off cherry picked texts that technology fell back to the stone age

[Anonymous No.17680449]

Because it is all so religious. Modern people have a hard time relating to that.

[Anonymous No.17680464]

>>17680429
Is building gothic cathedrals stone age technology now?

[Anonymous No.17680487]

Because middle English is a pain to read for most people.

[Anonymous No.17680490]

>>17680464
Your pottery being inferior to Roman pottery until the early modern era is
Not having tiled houses until the industrial revolution while they were very common during the Roman era is
Having animals shrink massively in size is
Your royal courts leaving less archaeological evidence than a Roman farming community is
And no, gothic cathedrals that got built and rebuilt across hundreds of years are not proof of prowess
Especially when compared to far superior architecture to their east and south with the Arabs and the byzantines

[Anonymous No.17680511]

>>17680232
Yes, lioe Chaucer. The satirical tale of Sir Thopas is much more fun than the actual knight stories it satirizes.

[Anonymous No.17680519]

>>17680248
The Byzantines had quite a rich corpus of literature, it's just insanely intertextual that only specialists can really parse it.

[Anonymous No.17680530]

>>17680429
I largely hold the view that Chris Wickham advocates for which is that the Germanic peoples considered themselves Roman and inheritors of the roman tradition so to speak. Hence, the reason why they adapted many of the practices and cultural aspects. It was more of a gradual shift too, as before the fall of Rome, Rome had been moving to a militarized aristocracy. Of course many things still changed on the state level economically and politically but the notion that this was some kind of huge event that was unexpected and sudden is wrong imo.

[Anonymous No.17680579]

>>17680490
Your prejudice comes entirely from a progressivist view of history. You assume that history must always move in an upwards trajectory in terms of technological development. This is wrong and only makes sense to the modern mind, since for the modern it does look like history progresses in such a way. However, the technological state of society remained largely unchanged for the vast majority of human history until the industrial revolution. The technology of ancient Egypt was on par with, if not superior to, the technology of pre-industrial-revolution Europe. Rather than blaming a particular religion or calling their culture “backwards” for not progressing, you should look at other factors, since progress rarely happened in between the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

[Anonymous No.17680609]

Because Christianity ruined art .

[Anonymous No.17680613]

>>17680490
Notice how all your example point to the same thing, namely the roman era, which is way later than even the iron age and represent a jump in technological ability only equaled by early Han China and the Industrial revolution onward. So basically you're saying "middle age technology doesn't compare to that post-iron age peak that wasn't surpassed until the 19th century". By that token people shouldn't care about literature written between 1500 and 1800 either, and that includes among others Shakespeare.
I think you'll grant me that your "technology fell back to the stone age" is not only hilariously exaggerated, it's completely besides the point.

>And no, gothic cathedrals that got built and rebuilt across hundreds of years are not proof of prowess
Why not? If building a cathedral over centuries is so unimpressive why don't we have any cathedral-like building from the neolithic? Could it be that the technology required to build cathedral is actually not stone-age level?

>Especially when compared to far superior architecture to their east and south with the Arabs and the byzantines
I'm sure you have very precise analysis of architecture to back up to back up that comparison.

[Anonymous No.17680623]

>>17680579
>he technology of ancient Egypt was on par with, if not superior to, the technology of pre-industrial-revolution Europe
You can’t be fucking serious

[Anonymous No.17680653]

>>17680609
secularism ruined art

[Anonymous No.17680654]

>>17680623
They had levitating pyramids and solar powered boats

[Anonymous No.17680666]

>>17680654
And anubites

[Anonymous No.17680676]

They should call the Canterbury Tales the Banterbury Tales, because Chaucer took the piss out of everyone.

[Anonymous No.17680683]

>>17680579
You put so much stuff in my mouth which I never said or even implied that I'm not even going to bother replying
Otherwise, please point out where I
>Supported a whig view of history
>Blamed Christianity or whatever you mean by culture
But most importantly
Technology before the industrial revolution is not fucking interchangeable
>>17680613
I never actually attacked the literature of the middle ages
I'm mostly indifferent to it but that's purely on me
I attacked the one statement about historians
The field is very contentious on the matter
Your views were intensely supported for about 50 years after Peter Brown published late antiquity
The stone age claim derives from actual archaeological studies that were merged into a very interesting book I think I mentioned in my previous post
Take Northumbria which was a fairly powerful kingdom by the standards of its time
We have less evidence of the existence of its royal court than of a small Roman agricultural settlement from a few centuries prior which existed close to what would later become said royal court
If you want to dispel the "muh evil christkeks destroyed civilization and letters"
I'm all for it
But this has taken extreme levels in recent years that are simply inconsistent with any and all evidence present

[Anonymous No.17680693]

>>17680683
>50 years
Meant 30, sorry

[Anonymous No.17680703]

>>17680248
>the middle ages were some type of dark period
Thank enlightementfags for that. Renaissancechads unfortunately also did that a little, but it didn't really stick around.

[Anonymous No.17680722]

>>17680213
Their nonfiction was more interesting.

[Anonymous No.17680738]

>>17680213
>Is it because the enlightenment convinced everyone nothing of value was produced in that time period or some other reason?
Yes. They were so butthurt about christianity that they couldn't judge the middle ages with even a little bit of objectivity. Thanks to them there're still people who believe that everyone in that period was stinky and dirty even though soap was a middle age invention and public baths were a crucial aspect of social life.

[Anonymous No.17680752]

>>17680738
The Romans already had soap before they were even Christianized though.

[Anonymous No.17680759]

>>17680623
I genuinely don't think about the bottom 50% of the countries in the world today could build the Giza Pyramid on their own.

[Anonymous No.17680769]

>>17680759
I’m not replying to this post

[Anonymous No.17680785]

>>17680769
you seem to have traipsed into a coaxation snafu-scented

[Anonymous No.17680786]

>>17680683
Your thoughts on Chris Wickham's work?

[Anonymous No.17680787]

>>17680759
No one can anymore, since that kind of stonemasonry became a lost art. It was too expensive and time consuming compared to more modern techniques so we neglected it.

[Anonymous No.17680801]

>>17680752
I don't know much about its whole history, but I'm fairly sure that while it existed the romans didn't use it to clean the body but as hair dye. I think in high school I've translated a Plinius Secundus text about that.

[Anonymous No.17680808]

>>17680787
Countries and people today wouldn't want to spend billions to create something like that anyway.

[Anonymous No.17680819]

>>17680683
>Your views were intensely supported for about 50 years after Peter Brown published late antiquity
I don't really have definite views on this topic, I'm just pointing out that 1. the technological achievement of the roman are exceptional for their time and represent a steep increase never to be equaled until the industrial revolution and that 2. people in the stone age couldn't have build anything as massive, durable or intricate as a major cathedral like Notre Dame de Paris or the Cologne cathedral. I doubt any of those statements are controversial right now.

>The stone age claim derives from actual archaeological studies that were merged into a very interesting book I think I mentioned in my previous post
Okay, sounds interesting, I'll check it out.

>We have less evidence of the existence of its royal court than of a small Roman agricultural settlement from a few centuries prior which existed close to what would later become said royal court
There can be many explanations for that, off the top of my head: was the court fixed or nomadic? How much of our evidence for the roman settlement comes from things that go along with vast empire like tax records? Wasn't that court destroyed by infighting or invasion, which is more likely to happen to a royal court than to a small settlement? etc.
Anyway this doesn't really change the spirit of my argument. I'm going to have to check your book to make up my mind about the stone age comparison (probably won't have time to do it for a few months though), but using the Romans as baseline for expected technological achievement is wrong imo.

>If you want to dispel the "muh evil christkeks destroyed civilization and letters"
I thought the meme was that the evil barbarians did it? In both cases it's mostly just a meme, especially in the Christian case (why didn't the byzantine empire collapse if the christians are so bad?). Can't really argue against the fact the fall of the Roman empire put a dent in technological development, but that's only to be expected (and it's not the first time it has happened).

[Anonymous No.17680822]

>>17680801
At the time of Pliny the elder they didn't, but it was already common in the 2nd century AC. They also built bath houses.

[Anonymous No.17680841]

>>17680819
I think you mean scientific revolution, not industrial evolution

[Anonymous No.17680842]

>>17680822
I knew about the bath houses, but I only knew that they used oil and other stuff after washing themselves. Cool, thanks.

[Anonymous No.17680854]

What I like most about literature from earlier eras is a mix of entering into their mythical conception of the world, and being able to relate directly to this or that man who lived hundreds of generations before mine, as if all that seperated us were a language and not millenia.

[Anonymous No.17680871]

>>17680511
not really. it's all interesting because it gives you a look into an alien world.

[Anonymous No.17680875]

>>17680683
>Take Northumbria which was a fairly powerful kingdom by the standards of its time
>We have less evidence of the existence of its royal court than of a small Roman agricultural settlement from a few centuries prior
History's records are really weird sometimes. We have proof that my hometown of barely 9k people, that has never been relevant at any point in time, has existed for at least 2k years but not about actual important places or events.

[Anonymous No.17680877]

>>17680336
>The problem is that its really inaccessible because of the spelling and grammar (or language if you go back far enough)
what? that's what makes it accessible, you retard. no shit it's not going to be modern english, which hadn't formed yet.

[Anonymous No.17680886]

>>17680787
A modern developed country could do it, but it would cost a fuck ton of money. It is feasible to quarry, transport, precisely cut and align that much sandstone, and the smaller quantities of granite, with modern methods.

[Anonymous No.17680943]

>>17680623
Why not? Outraged incredulity isn’t an argument. Go read any history book on Ancient Egypt. Their technology was just as developed as pre-industrial-revolution Europe. In fact most historians would say that very little technological advancement occurred between the Iron Age and the industrial revolution. Technology merely spread, it didn’t advance much. Trade, agricultural tools and methods, writing, metallurgy, architecture, and so on, were all invented and developed by the Iron Age. The industrial revolution brought forth more advanced technology.

[Anonymous No.17680959]

>>17680683
>Take Northumbria
Come to France, plenty of records there.

[Anonymous No.17680970]

>>17680841
I really meant the industrial revolution. In terms of overall development what we call the scientific revolution is much more contained and niche. It's the industrial revolution that massively accelerated the world production machine and techniques of production (including techniques or knowledge acquisition) along the way. Overall technological development in Western Europe the 1600-1800 was still in several important respects inferior to the Roman's.

[Anonymous No.17680976]

>>17680759
>>17680654
Ancient Egypt had more than the pyramids. They were incredibly technologically and architecturally advanced. Most of their architecture is gone but when one reads about it one can imagine the splendour. In fact the Greek style of architecture, which we call the “classical style” today, has its origins in Egypt.

[Anonymous No.17680985]

>>17680213
Read chaucer and pearl
They're proto milton and shakespeare and are great fun

[Anonymous No.17680986]

>>17680808
But they would gladly spend billions for welfare and "aid". We live in a clown word where our priorities are garbage.

[Anonymous No.17681029]

>>17680676
best post itt
>>17680331
decent runner up

[Anonymous No.17681041]

>>17680986
how is welfare worse than building a big pyramid for an inbred retard to be dead in?

[Anonymous No.17681057]

>>17681041
implying the pyramids were not neo-Atlantean power plants

[Anonymous No.17681074]

>>17681057
this nigga too woke

[Anonymous No.17681223]

>>17680683
>We have less evidence of the existence of its royal court than of a small Roman agricultural settlement from a few centuries prior which existed close to what would later become said royal court
There were 10000 small Roman agricultural settlements but only 7 Anglo-Saxon courts. 99% of sites of any kind were lost. Do the math.

A course in Bayesian statistics should be mandatory for every singe degree.

[Anonymous No.17681273]

>>17680970
>Overall technological development in Western Europe the 1600-1800 was still in several important respects inferior to the Roman's.
The romans didn’t circumnavigate the globe or have cannon

[Anonymous No.17681293]

>>17681273
Yes, but the quality of their steel and their civil engineering, for instance, were still superior to that of 15th century Spain.

[Anonymous No.17681340]

>>17681057
Nonsense, they're either late-predilvian Babylonian observatories or early Maldek long-range gravitational-lenses.

[Anonymous No.17681357]

I thought the middle ages were considered dark because the Roman Empire fell and immense knowledge, culture and stability was lost. How is that made up by the romanticists or rationalists or whatever

[Anonymous No.17681370]

>>17681340
>late-predilvian Babylonian observatories
as I said Neo-Atlantean, unless you hold to the absurd myth of the Babylonian Renaissance, as if all the essential parts had not been put into place by the Atlanteans

[Anonymous No.17681374]

>>17681357
Because there wasn't actually much culture lossed. Philosophy chugged on with a more theologic tint and science kept advancing. If you bothered to read about the tine you'd know about the numerous renissances and advancements that defined the times

[Anonymous No.17681390]

>>17681370
Fair enough if you consider Babylonian to be essentially neo-atlanteans, but I'm more partial to the Maldekian hypothesis myself. And many say the Babylonian renaissance is basically just a holdover of surviving Centaurian technopoiesis that was rediscovered.

[Anonymous No.17681392]

>>17681357
The term "dark ages" originally came from Petrarch, but only because he was a Romanboo and idolized classic literature. He thought Europe had strayed too far from ancient Rome and that they should try to emulate their arts and poetry.
Later on Enlightenment philosophers adopted the term because they were seething really hard about Christianity.

[Anonymous No.17681404]

>>17681340
I see that image posted so often. Why is that? Seems like skitzo babble to me. Tell me why you think that image is true, provide content.

[Anonymous No.17681438]

>>17681357
>romanticists
People like Walter Scott idealised the period to make it some kind of proto-romantic era. They notable based themselves on the literary genre of courtly love while overlooking more absurd and down to earth genres like fatrasie.

[Anonymous No.17681539]

>>17680213
because of secular propaganda

[Anonymous No.17682017]

>>17680213
Say what you will about the general trend, but the Song of Roland specifically is actually just boring, unaesthetic (maybe a translation issue), and its outdated, simplistic, moralistic mythos has no real grounding power for us moderns.

[Anonymous No.17682446]

>>17680262
Racial violence wasn't really a thing in medieval Europe outside of attacks on the Jews.

Remember people defined themselves above all else as Christians, the crusades were religious conflicts not racial ones.

>t. Medieval historian

[Anonymous No.17682520]

>>17681293
Holy fuck you cannot be this dense

[Anonymous No.17682542]

>>17680519
their poetry is dogshit

[Anonymous No.17682981]

>>17682446
People's Crusade

[Anonymous No.17683016]

>>17682520
I direct you back to the exact wording of one of my earlier posts
>Overall technological development in Western Europe the 1600-1800 was still in several important respects inferior to the Roman's.
Emphasis on "several important respects". Quality of steel is an important respect. So is civil engineering. Both apply to pretty much any pre-19th century country.

[Anonymous No.17683026]

>>17681404
It's just a slightly more creative take on the boring old "muh christian dark age" meme. It's on the same level as the "virgin vs chad" memes.

[Anonymous No.17683680]

Is Orlando Furioso worth a read?

[Anonymous No.17683693]

>>17680759
dude the United States of America could not build the Giza Pyramid on their own

[Anonymous No.17683714]

>>17680530
People like Heather and Ward-Perkins are against it moreso on the basis of the Peter Brown-esque interpretation of Rome "not falling, but transforming" being pushed in contemporary politics for obvious reasons.

It's not about wanting to imagine the fall as some apocalyptic scene but rather about denying the politically motivated historical revisionism of it being a more or less peaceful period of cultural enrichment.

[Anonymous No.17683717]

>>17683714
*Peter Heather

[Anonymous No.17683784]

>>17680787
>>17680759
>>17680808
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.17683877]

>>17681041
I wouldn't expect you to understand

[Anonymous No.17683897]

>>17680213
It was shit

[Anonymous No.17683947]

>>17681374
Do you not read much classical literature? How many plays (see: the Greek tragedians), novels (see: Petronius), historical chronicles (see: Livy), philosophical dialogues (see: Cicero) have came down to us in a state of sever fragmentation? How many works have been lost completely? You can hand-wave away the lost knowledge but it is nonetheless felt severely by those of us who actually wish to read these works.

[Anonymous No.17683952]

>>17683680
Yeah. There's a disconcerting amount of women-flattery but otherwise it's amusing.

[Anonymous No.17683970]

>>17680490
>And no, gothic cathedrals that got built and rebuilt across hundreds of years are not proof of prowess
uh yes they are lol. you can't just deny the architectural achievement they were

[Anonymous No.17684001]

The "Middle Ages" was the peak of the human experience. Humanity has gone downhill ever since.

[Anonymous No.17684140]

>>17680490
Gothic cathedrals are much more subtle works of construction than byzantines basilicae or their arab copycats, They're still the only buildings whose supporting structure is outside the building, thus allowing for wide windows unequaled until XIXth century.. Compare it to the heavy abutments of Hagia Sophia or anything the Roman built.
Also tiled house has been ever since Rome the standard roofing in all southern Europe. England hadn't it simply because it favoured a different roofing. In northern France it's slates for example. There's not one and single way to make roofs.
>>17681357
That's arguable for culture as far as we're talking about pagan rome, much less so for stability given how prone to civil war was the Roman empire, but as for science I think many people are really idealizing the state of roman science and technics.

[Anonymous No.17684151]

>>17680759
Pyramids are all about piling stones, there's nothing hard about it with modern cranes and machinery.

[Anonymous No.17684166]

>>17683714
Except Wickham neither argues fully for continuity nor does he argue for apocalyptic happenings. He's in the middle and tries to synthesize these two opposing views. He also recognizes that different areas and peoples responded differently to the "collapse" (England took longer to progress than the Franks) and that it's not as simple as claiming one historical extreme or another on the issue . For instance, archaeological simplification does not warrant someone to say that roman culture and traditions were lost and that it took ages for Europe to restore any semblance of stability as we see numerous texts such as the Augustine's City of God which show no hint or worry of Rome decaying. So just as the view that post Rome continuity is faulty, so too is the view that barbarian violence destroyed society and civilization in the west for hundreds of years .

[Anonymous No.17684180]

>>17684151
you don't understand the scale of the pyramids

[Anonymous No.17684192]

>>17684180
Well 150m height, 230m base length for Giza pyramid. That's a lot of piled stones, but in the end it's merely piled stones.

[Anonymous No.17684240]

>>17680213
Medieval literature is fun. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Beowulf are very enjoyable and exciting reads, and the correspondences of Abelard and Heloise are intriguing

[Anonymous No.17685030]

>>17680787
This. We don't even know how they did it.

[Anonymous No.17685059]

>>17682446
Isn't that kind of similar to ancient rome? The most important thing was roman citizenship, not muh race.

[Anonymous No.17685080]

>>17680251
>Because 99% of it was church related.
there's an enormous volume of modern writing that's basically about our modern religion and governance (universal liberal democracy or whatever we want to call it, that thing that's in the air), it's dull to read as well. but we don't judge our modern literature by the existence of this other mass of joyless writing. It seems your real complaint is that they just didn't have much actual 'literature' in those days, and yeah, that's pretty much it. same reason most people don't care so much about popular music from the 1940s. /thread

[Anonymous No.17685101]

>>17685059
someone 100 miles from the city could technically be a citizen, you're right, but it was more about how close to the city you were

[Anonymous No.17685201]

>>17681357
The Roman Empire was the most degenerate age of antiquity, this is the true redpill.

[Anonymous No.17685353]

Thoughts on pic related as an overview of the Middle Age mindset?

[Anonymous No.17685430]

>>17680490
>ahhhh, not the pottery! Forget the literature, arts, architecture, music, science, mathematics, philosophy, and many other human knowledge that ceme from this period of time!
Have a (You)

[Anonymous No.17685511]

>>17683784
That's not gonna last a 1000 years, much less the current age of the pyramids, which is almost 5000

[Anonymous No.17685516]

>>17685511
>That's not gonna last a 1000 years, much less the current age of the pyramids, which is almost 5000
bold of you to assume that, we're trapped in this period forever

[Anonymous No.17685525]

The Dark Age was a real thing, but the issue is most people think it lasted until the Rennaissance, when it was actually over by 1000 AD.

[Anonymous No.17685536]

>>17685516
You don't live in a universe where perpetual motion machines are possible. Don't assume this not even barely understood machine we call industrial civilization can run for 1000 years.

On the other hand, even if it does, we tear down buildings all the time.

[Anonymous No.17685544]

>>17685525
more like 900 AD at best.

[Anonymous No.17685654]

>>17680213
People say the song of roland is boring but I liked it, you even got dudes getting split in half

[Anonymous No.17686143]

>>17684192
They are cut and aligned stones, not piled, and its the weight that is relevant here

[Anonymous No.17686243]

>>17681223
>A course in Bayesian statistics should be mandatory for every singe degree.
holy shit this is peak midwitism. I will let you know thattthe only good view is the frequency view and that any statistics is crap, and what you value when you are an impotent atheist.

[Anonymous No.17686273]

>>17685536
>You don't live in a universe where perpetual motion machines are possible.
lmao
don't tell me you believe in entropy, show me one entrope faggot

[Anonymous No.17686374]

Anyone got a good chart on Medieval literature?

[Anonymous No.17686485]

>>17685353
Seems like it doesn't cover the early middle ages. I recommend reading The Inheritance of Rome (400-1000) first.

[Anonymous No.17686512]

>>17685525
It didn't happen in byzantium and England recovered by 900. The Frank's were fine.

[Anonymous No.17686862]

>>17686512
Byzantium had a sort of dark age after the Muslim expansion for roughly a century.

[Anonymous No.17687058]

>>17686862
I agree but that wasn't because of the Roman collapse.

[Anonymous No.17687085]

Name 10 good Middle Ages books

[Anonymous No.17687112]

>>17687085
Augustine's Confessions
Augustine's City of God
Boethius The Consolation of Philosophy
Procopius The Secret History
Gregory of Tours The History of the Franks
Quran
Bede Ecclesiastical History of the English People
Einhard Life of Charlemagne
Beowulf
Summa Theologica

Not really literature but you asked for books.

[Anonymous No.17687133]

>>17687112
Sounds like a dark age to me

[Anonymous No.17687164]

>>17687133
No a dark age would be something like 1000-600 BC

[Anonymous No.17687185]

>>17687164
You mean when Homer, Hesiod, and Archilochos wrote? Lol

[Anonymous No.17687197]

>>17687085
The Canterbury Tales
Divine Comedy
The Decameron
Le Morte D'Arthur
El Cantar del Mio Cid
Sir Gawain and The Green Knight
Orlando Furioso
Nibelungenlied
The Poetic Edda
The Consolation of Philosophy

[Anonymous No.17687232]

>>17686374

[Anonymous No.17687239]

>>17685654
Yeah it's got one description of a guy getting cut in half repeated a dozen times in a row over a series of muslims i don't care about

Maybe this shit would be exciting if i were a french peasant and somebody were singing it to get me hyped up to invade the holy land

[Anonymous No.17687260]

>>17687232
>not english

[smoker !HOZlQYR1MY No.17687284]

Is le morte d'arthur any good? I bought a used 2 vol paperback copy from a uni flash sale a while back and it's just been sitting on my shelf.

[Anonymous No.17687294]

>>17687260
the eternal Anglo refuses to translate good books

[Anonymous No.17687297]

>>17687284
smoke my ass

[Anonymous No.17687319]

>>17680666
my AoM nigga with devilish trips

[Anonymous No.17687363]

>>17687185
We no little about the history of this time. However, the early middle ages we know a lot about actually.

[Anonymous No.17687534]

>>17687363
Tell us about the early history of the Lombards

[Anonymous No.17687569]

>>17687534
>early middle ages (500-1200)
I'm not sure what you mean by early Lombard history but Paul the Deacon wrote a book on it I think.

[smoker !HOZlQYR1MY No.17688593]

>>17687297
nice, do you know if le morte d'arthur any good

[Anonymous No.17689199]

>>17680285
God I fucking hate the 1700s. Least kino century of human history.

[Anonymous No.17689284]

>>17687232
thanks for sharing this, much appreciated

[Anonymous No.17690084]

*dab*

[Anonymous No.17690106]

Renaissance was most based period of time, other than the bronze age

[Anonymous No.17690544]

>>17687197
>The Canterbury Tales, 1392
>Divine Comedy, 1472
>The Decameron, 1351
>Le Morte D'Arthur, 1485
>El Cantar del Mio Cid (1140-1207)
>Sir Gawain and The Green Knight, (14th cent.)
>Orlando Furioso, 1516
>Nibelungenlied, (~1200)
>The Poetic Edda (10th cent.???)
>The Consolation of Philosophy (524)
Anything post-1350 can safely be considered Renaissance; and Boethius was basically a Roman so he doesn't count either. You could be pedantic and claim that 14th an 15th cent. works fall within the Middle Ages but the fact that you've got so many clumped up right at the tail end of a 1000-year period should be enough to raise doubts in sounder minds than yours.

[Anonymous No.17690553]

>>17687239
>he isn't an illiterate French peasant
you need to go back onions-boy

[Anonymous No.17690564]

>>17680213
>read The Canterbury Tales
>hey, this middle English stuff aint so bad! What's next?
>try Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
>mfw

[Anonymous No.17690608]

>>17690544
>and Boethius was basically a Roman so he doesn't count either.
It was post roman collapse...

[Anonymous No.17690628]

>>17690608
Yeah maybe 15 minutes post roman collapse he was still BASICALLY a Roman.

[Anonymous No.17690638]

>>17687133
Several writings of history, theology. philosophy, and religion doesn't sound like a dark ages to me. I forgot about St Benedict, Pseudo-Dionysius, John Damascus, Peter Abelard, and John Scotus too.

[Anonymous No.17690646]

>>17690628
You think that the Fall of Rome was some kind of sudden event? Read a history book retard.

[Anonymous No.17690686]

>>17690544
The Divine Comedy is 1321, not 1472.

[Anonymous No.17690694]

>>17690628
Also you fail to realize that the Germanic peoples still thought they were Romans or at least the inheritors of Rome. You are basically saying that Clovis and Charlemagne were Roman since they adopted roman traditions. Odovacer was also a formerly in the roman military. Was he Roman too?

[Anonymous No.17690735]

>>17690646
>read a history book
>reads a book on 20th-century Somalian history
woah anon it says nothing about the roman empire in here
Boethius, despite being a Christian, utilizes pagan-esque symbolism (see the first part where he's chatting with philosophy personified); much in the vein of Italian renaissance poets like Dante, Ariosto, Tasso. I know Rome wasn't destroyed in a day, I'm saying that Boethius was too anchored to antiquity for him to be an author markedly "of the Middle Ages".
>>17690686
oh whatever my point still stands; the Renaissance started in Italy sooner than most places anyway
>>17690694
Shades of grey are there but saying that Boethius belonged as unreservedly to the Middle Ages as the author of the Nibelungenlied, for example, is silly.
Why can't u all be less buttmad lol.

[Anonymous No.17690752]

How does Middle Age writing compare to modern and postmodern writing?

[Anonymous No.17690792]

>>17690735
>I'm saying that Boethius was too anchored to antiquity for him to be an author markedly "of the Middle Ages".
Oh so now we are judging that someone can't be considered a middle age thinker or writer if they are using pagan philosophy in their works! Wow I guess Aquinas and pretty much every other medieval Christian Philosopher weren't middle age authors!

[Anonymous No.17690809]

>>17680256
Censorship of this nature springs from fear.
Why do you fear?

[Anonymous No.17690828]

>>17690809
No, it's the Harry Potter equivalent to not saying Voldemort's name.

[Anonymous No.17690844]

>>17690735
Either Boethius belongs to antiquity despite living in the dates we've arbitrarily defined as the medieval period or Chaucer belongs to the medieval period despite living in the dates we've arbitrarily assigned to the Renaissance*. You don't get to have it both ways.

*it's an artistic movement, not a time period. Two artists could live next door to each other and one could be part of the Renaissance while one was not.

[Anonymous No.17690846]

>>17690792
I didn't say
>someone can't be considered a middle age thinker or writer if they are using pagan philosophy in their works
learn to read numbnuts. I said, everything considered, he isn't really a Middle Ages author. Boethius:
1) sat at the tail end of the Roman empire (himself holding traditionally Roman offices)
2) used typically pagan imagery
but also you are right he
3) had strong links to classical Greek philosophers (most explicitly in his translations of them)
So what I'm saying is when it comes to making a list of authors from the Middle Ages, picking this guy (especially alongside many Renaissance authors, the choosing of which you have not even made a pretense of defending), does not very well demonstrate the greatness of that period's literature.

[Anonymous No.17690857]

>>17681340
I love this schizo shit, so interesting

[Anonymous No.17690868]

>>17690828
Yes, because they're scared of him.

[Anonymous No.17690874]

>>17690846
>especially alongside many Renaissance authors, the choosing of which you have not even made a pretense of defending
I didn't make that list I made >>17687112 and >>17690638

What would be the start of the "middle ages" for you then? 600 AD?

> does not very well demonstrate the greatness of that period's literature.
No wide sweeping epics or poems don't take away from the fantastic theology, history, and philosophy that we have from the period.

[Anonymous No.17690877]

>>17680213
Because it doesn't translate well. Like how Dante and Shakespeare are really ruined or severely handicapped by translation. The poetry and meter is such an important aspect. A lot of it is somewhat rough too, not as self-aware or focused as modern novels and usually lots of astrological and religious and antique views. It's fun though. Very nuanced when you start to really read and compare it. Crusade literature can be fun at times. A lot of it is translated for historians though so it can feel dry.
>>17690544
If you know literally anything about medieval/renaissance historiography, you know it's more defined by ideas and ideology than time or date. Like anything in history. Dante wrote so much about the ghibillines and guelfs, a quintessential medieval conflict. You should try reading those things you list.
>>17690846
If you know literally anything about medieval literature, you know pagan imagery and the philosopher are cornerstones of it. But you don't. Just stop talking.

[Anonymous No.17690909]

>>17690874
Alright I'm not going to be autistic and argue about what exact month of which year the Middle Ages began or ended. Placing Boethius in the Christian theological tradition is an entirely sound decision. I was criticizing the list the other guy made.

[Anonymous No.17690928]

>>17690877
>know anything about medieval literature
An expert! Why don't you >>17687085
I'm sure your choices will not overflow into the arguably renaissance (let's say for the sake of this list 1300 and onwards). And also no Boethius.

[Anonymous No.17690942]

>>17690868
Because he's evil, duh. Abrahamic religion is the root of all things bad about this planetary rock.

[Anonymous No.17690972]

>>17680877
Do you know what inaccessible means? People find the text more difficult, therefore they are less likely to read it/choose another medieval text next time.

[Anonymous No.17691039]

>>17690928
Consolations of Philosophy, because it absolutely does count
Piers Plowman
Nibelungenlied
Chanson de Guillaume
Chanson de Roland
Chanson d'Antioche
Roman de la Rose
Lancelot
Perceval or Parzival, depending on your preference
Mio Cid

No one on the planet defines the middle ages as ending at 1300. You're really an idiot if you think this.

[Anonymous No.17691057]

>>17690846
Orlando Furioso is the only one of those works that is part of the Renaissance.
Dante:
1) lived and wrote in the late Middle Ages
2) used typically medieval Christian imagery
and
3) had strong links to medieval philosophy

[Anonymous No.17691956]

>>17680256
SEETHE

[Anonymous No.17692006]

>>17686485
well, it does say “the waning of” right in the title.