Well, I'll pick two dates out of the air. Let's say, 450 AD to 1550 AD, give or
take a few years either way, on both. As to defending this choice, I'll pass for
now. The tendency, as you of course know, is to choose endpoints which correspond
to some notable events, but given the considerable disagreement among historians
about which events to pick, and why to pick them, I find that a quite arbitrary
way of proceeding, just about as arbitrary as the way I just used, which is based
on a multitude of memories of what people have said and what I've learned from
them about the European Middle Ages.
I apologize for the X < Y, etc. To me, as a mathematician, that's like speaking
in an ordinary (or as one says, "natural") language. However, I know full well
from many years experience that talking this way to many people is a sure path to
obfuscation.
:-) Gordon
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> Give a beginning date and end date (these can be approximate) for the
> medieval period as you see it. Without this, it's difficult to follow what
> you're saying.
>
> pat
> ===================================================
> In a message dated 01/15/2000 2:47:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > I would like to suggest that from one point of view, medieval *studies*
> > are
> > in
> > the present, not in the past, and in a sense can't be confined to some
> > period
> > defined by endpoints in some calendat. What happened, or what was said
> > and done, in the period from X AD to Y AD (X < Y, with values to be
> > debated) is one thing, and what we say and think about what was said and
> > done in that period is another. What we say and think today about what
> > was said and done and thought in some period is conditioned by who we
> > are, what we've learned, what our experiences have been, and so on. I
> > suggest that trying to talk about events and documents of some past period
> > of time as if nothing has happened since then or that we haven't been and
> > continue to be influenced in many ways by what happened in the past is
> > doomed to fail in some degree. It's not possible, I think, to live, as it
> > were, wholly in some past time, as tempting as that may seem to be to
> > some of us.
> >
> > It certainly seems to me to be desirable to limit in some manner what can
> > be said on an internet medieval-religion list about what happened and was
> > done and said in European medieval times concerning religion, but it's not
> > clear to me how this can be done with any precision. One thing, though,
> > is that the discussions should be limited to civil ones, which, people
> > being who they are, requires some regulation. But I suggest that
> > workable policies for such regulation should be flexible enough to
> > adjust for a plethora of circumstances. Regulators should, in my
> > view, try to enforce messages on the list to be concerned in some
> > fair degree to be related (or, as people say, "materially" related,
> > though here one might hope that thet they also be "spiritually"
> > related) to religions of the medieval Europe, a period whose
> > temporal limits historians have debated and continue to debate.
> > Periodization by historians is a murky subject, as far as I'm
> > concerned.
> >
> > This brings to mind another of my historiographical beliefs. I think that
> > in some sense, a past which is completely independent of individuals is an
> > abstraction, a kind or part of a Kantian noumenon, if you like, at least as
> > far
> > as we humans are concerned. As a consequence, as a practical matter, I
> > like to consider that there are in fact many pasts, one for each
> individual.
> >
> > Two persons may have quite similar pasts, or they may have quite dissimilar
> > pasts, or something in between, depending on who they are. I'm not
> > talking just about what this person or that has experienced during a life,
> > or
> > what the person remembers about his or her experiences, but also how a
> > person envisions "history", in the sense of what happened. How a person
> > envisions "history" in this sense produces "history" in another sense,
> > namely
> > what one imagines and says and thinks happened.
> >
> > I suggest that the popular suggestion, usually attributed to Otto Ranke,
> > that
> > we discover and describe what *really* happened, wie es eigentlich
> > gewesen war, or, theologically speaking, what God hath actually wrought
> > is not a program which can be fully carried through. Now as in a glass
> > (mirror!) darkly . . . . .
> >
> > I'm not sure that the above is relevant to this?
> >
> > Gordon Fisher [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > "Rev. David G. Peters" wrote:
> >
> > > We've recently been discussing where to draw the line as to what are and
> > > what are not topics appropriate to this mailing list. I am curious
> > > about the Reformers. For example, Martin Luther is sometimes considered
> > > a "late medieval" theologian. Sometimes he's considered an "early
> > > modern" theologian. Scholars differ as to the time frame of what
> > > constitutes "medieval studies." What do the scholars on this list
> > > consider to be the beginning and ending dates for the era which we are
> > > discussing here?
> > >
> > > -David Peters,
> > > Ph.D. student, Marquette University
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rev. David G. Peters,
> > > Pastor
> > > Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church
> > > Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod
> > > 2908 S. Colony Ave.
> > > Union Grove, WI 53182-9564
> > > (262) 878-4156
> > > [log in to unmask]
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|