Should I Put This On RF?

[Harel13]

You never highlighted a textbook?

Heresy!
The worst I've done is underlining with pencil.

 

[Rival]

Is there anything further about the link between "paganism having free rein" and retarded cultural development?

I don't know anything about this topic, just passing curiousity.

The Church was a literary, highly Romanised urban culture, whereas the West Slavs at that time were not. They were not what would called 'cultured' in the Classical sense. No books, stone buildings, advanced form of society etc. It was the Church that enabled pagan European tribes to become the literate, artistic, technological society they became.

 

[Rival]

Heresy!
The worst I've done is underlining with pencil.

I'm the worst

 

[exchemist]

I'm the worst

This was a source of friction between my parents. My mother made margin notes and underlined in pencil, which my father considered vandalism.

But I must say that, to me, a fluorescent highlighter is a bit extreme - unless it is to highlight a part in a vocal score so you don't try to sing the Tenor line by mistake when you turn the page. I confess I do do that, but then I think of musical scores as tools towards a performance rather than objects to curate, like a book.

 

[Rival]

This was a source of friction between my parents. My mother made margin notes and underlined in pencil, which my father considered vandalism.

But I must say that, to me, a fluorescent highlighter is a bit extreme - unless it is to highlight a part in a vocal score so you don't try to sing the Tenor line by mistake when you turn the page. I confess I do do that, but then I think of musical scores as tools towards a performance rather than objects to curate, like a book.

I never used to do it at all until I started spending more time with my boyfriend and noticed he highlights stuff. I was always a pencil or crayon person at most. I just found the highlighters quicker and easier. I'm not planning to give this book away, nor any of my Mediæval books, so I'm not bothered about it being an issue for anyone else.

 

[exchemist]

I never used to do it at all until I started spending more time with my boyfriend and noticed he highlights stuff. I was always a pencil or crayon person at most. I just found the highlighters quicker and easier. I'm not planning to give this book away, nor any of my Mediæval books, so I'm not bothered about it being an issue for anyone else.

Ah well, he's a lawyer so he probably needs to do that, as an aid to his professional competence. But you are obviously in my mother's camp, just more modern.

 

[Rival]

Ah well, he's a lawyer so he probably needs to do that, as an aid to his professional competence. But you are obviously in my mother's camp, just more modern.

I actually bought some of my own from Tesco, it's their own brand and they're much less bright than the ones Vouthon uses. He has the Stabilo Boss ones (used on this picture). The Tesco ones are a bit less offensive on the eyes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Church was a literary, highly Romanised urban culture, whereas the West Slavs at that time were not. They were not what would called 'cultured' in the Classical sense. No books, stone buildings, advanced form of society etc. It was the Church that enabled pagan European tribes to become the literate, artistic, technological society they became.

It can be asked was it the Church or other circumstances like invasion? Like that "what have the Romans done for us" scene in the Life of Brian. Those words were more or less probably uttered at some point by people around the world. Britons, Egyptians, Jews and everyone in between was changed by Rome, if for no other reason the in fighting stopped and new, larger identities began to emerge and unite people who may have otherwiss continued with constant in fighting.
And, of course there was already a deal of culture, art and technology even before the Church. Ireland is a fine example where the old and new religions were merged in many ways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, what's the worst that could hap--

View attachment 80013

@Augustus @RestlessSoul @exchemist​

After thinking it over think I understand his reasoning, however, I do wish he would have discussed some of the evidence found to support this (though I don't really doubt it) and especially why it matters. After all, to some it's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, and the hardships and freedom of Nod have been preferred to the comforts and rules of Eden. Amd even without the benefits of the Church we still honor the Germanic Pagan gods when we say the English and German names of the days of the week.
So it would be nice to have those fleshed out.

 

[Yerda]

The Church was a literary, highly Romanised urban culture, whereas the West Slavs at that time were not. They were not what would called 'cultured' in the Classical sense. No books, stone buildings, advanced form of society etc. It was the Church that enabled pagan European tribes to become the literate, artistic, technological society they became.

I see, that makes sense. I'm sure the church brought all sorts of useful technology.

I'm pretty sure it was the church that brought writing to Scotland, in fact.

 

[Polymath257]

I started reading the book quoted in the OP and have found this author to use language that isn't as 'neutral' in regards to Christianity as I would usually expect from a historian. For example, he attributes the victory of Charles Martel over the Saracens as being due to 'the aid of Christ'. In another passage, he speaks of the 'heathen practices' which the church was attempting to stamp out.

Now, it is possible in both passages to read them as the views someone at the time would have taken, but I do find the language to be more biased towards Christianity than I would expect in a book such as this, especially in the early middle ages when other views were common.

 

[Augustus]

I started reading the book quoted in the OP and have found this author to use language that isn't as 'neutral' in regards to Christianity as I would usually expect from a historian... Now, it is possible in both passages to read them as the views someone at the time would have taken

I'd say he is very much using the terms to maintain narrative cohesion with the surrounding material being quoted rather than expressing his own views:

“The decisive battle took place in 732 between Tours and Poitiers. Charles “the Unconquered” unleashed his full martial might against the enemy, killing their commander Abderrahman and vanquishing them with the aid of Christ. “Thus did he triumph as victor over his enemies,” exulted the Carolingian chroniclers.4 Never again were the Saracens to return to these regions, so distant from their Arabic–North African home territory, as conquerors. The “Europeans” (Europenses) had once and for all repelled the sons of Ishmael, as one Spanish writer noted.”

“A hitherto unknown sense of religiosity began to permeate the office of monarch. By means of anointment and coronation, regality was ritually tied into the church. This all took place more consistently and more extensively than in the Carolingian period. The Ottonian and Salian kings now appeared as the Christus Domini, the “Anointed One of the Lord,” almost as the “vicar of Christ” (Vicarius Christi). In return, he was expected to strengthen religion in his realm and combat heathen practices. “O Lord, You who are the glory of the just and who show mercy to sinners, who sent his only son to bring salvation to man with His blood, You who abolish all conflict and are the champion of all those who believe in You, and in whose will the might of all kingdoms is founded,” so runs the service of coronation of the “Romano-German Pontifical,” a manuscript of liturgical practice compiled during the reign of Otto the Great”

 

[Rival]

I started reading the book quoted in the OP and have found this author to use language that isn't as 'neutral' in regards to Christianity as I would usually expect from a historian. For example, he attributes the victory of Charles Martel over the Saracens as being due to 'the aid of Christ'. In another passage, he speaks of the 'heathen practices' which the church was attempting to stamp out.

Now, it is possible in both passages to read them as the views someone at the time would have taken, but I do find the language to be more biased towards Christianity than I would expect in a book such as this, especially in the early middle ages when other views were common.

He's taking into account Mediaeval biases and sources and portraying it from their POV using correct language. IMO that's the sign of a good author, anything else would be anachronistic and wouldn't represent the way things were experienced at the time so we would not be getting accurate information regarding how they saw their own circumstances.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd say he is very much using the terms to maintain narrative cohesion with the surrounding material being quoted rather than expressing his own views:

“The decisive battle took place in 732 between Tours and Poitiers. Charles “the Unconquered” unleashed his full martial might against the enemy, killing their commander Abderrahman and vanquishing them with the aid of Christ. “Thus did he triumph as victor over his enemies,” exulted the Carolingian chroniclers.4 Never again were the Saracens to return to these regions, so distant from their Arabic–North African home territory, as conquerors. The “Europeans” (Europenses) had once and for all repelled the sons of Ishmael, as one Spanish writer noted.”

“A hitherto unknown sense of religiosity began to permeate the office of monarch. By means of anointment and coronation, regality was ritually tied into the church. This all took place more consistently and more extensively than in the Carolingian period. The Ottonian and Salian kings now appeared as the Christus Domini, the “Anointed One of the Lord,” almost as the “vicar of Christ” (Vicarius Christi). In return, he was expected to strengthen religion in his realm and combat heathen practices. “O Lord, You who are the glory of the just and who show mercy to sinners, who sent his only son to bring salvation to man with His blood, You who abolish all conflict and are the champion of all those who believe in You, and in whose will the might of all kingdoms is founded,” so runs the service of coronation of the “Romano-German Pontifical,” a manuscript of liturgical practice compiled during the reign of Otto the Great”

I found he first quote to be more suspect than the second. I really doubt that the Saracens thought Martel won because of the 'aid of Christ'. Even with an addition of quotes around that, it would have been better, imho.

The second is easier to interpret as the views of those at the time. I'd still prefer scare quotes.

 

[Polymath257]

He's taking into account Mediaeval biases and sources and portraying it from their POV using correct language. IMO that's the sign of a good author, anything else would be anachronistic and wouldn't represent the way things were experienced at the time so we would not be getting accurate information regarding how they saw their own circumstances.

And if he consistently did this from both sides, I would agree. But, like I noted, I doubt the Saracens thought Charles Martel won because of the aid of Christ. In most other works I have read, that would have been in scare quotes, which would accurately portray the views of those at the time, not interfere with the narrative, and allow other interpretations from other sources.

 

[Rival]

And if he consistently did this from both sides, I would agree. But, like I noted, I doubt the Saracens thought Charles Martel won because of the aid of Christ. In most other works I have read, that would have been in scare quotes, which would accurately portray the views of those at the time, not interfere with the narrative, and allow other interpretations from other sources.

It's a translation and the translator has been panned quite a bit, so this might not be an author problem but a translator problem.

 

[Augustus]

I found he first quote to be more suspect than the second. I really doubt that the Saracens thought Martel won because of the 'aid of Christ'. Even with an addition of quotes around that, it would have been better, imho.

The second is easier to interpret as the views of those at the time. I'd still prefer scare quotes.

It’s pretty common to use such expressions for narrative purposes in history texts.

You wouldn’t read the following as favouring Native American gods for example:

“More than eighty percent of the Native Americans in the region died. The powerful Pequots lost four thousand people. Traditional healing practices were ineffective, spirits angry. To the English, too, this was a divine intervention”
Indigenous Continent - Pekka Hämäläinen


Imo scare quotes are a bit tabloid and also confuse with actual quotes, while using expressions like “As the Native Americans saw it, the spirits were angry” are clunky, wordy and redundant.

For me it’s just stylistic.

 

[Polymath257]

It's a translation and the translator has been panned quite a bit, so this might not be an author problem but a translator problem.

Very good point.

 

[Polymath257]

It’s pretty common to use such expressions for narrative purposes in history texts.

You wouldn’t read the following as favouring Native American gods for example:

“More than eighty percent of the Native Americans in the region died. The powerful Pequots lost four thousand people. Traditional healing practices were ineffective, spirits angry. To the English, too, this was a divine intervention”
Indigenous Continent - Pekka Hämäläinen

Actually, I would prefer scare quotes here as well.

Imo scare quotes are a bit tabloid and also confuse with actual quotes, while using expressions like “As the Native Americans saw it, the spirits were angry” are clunky, wordy and redundant.

For me it’s just stylistic.

I see your point, but I do prefer the scare quotes in cases like this. I agree the other construction is clunky.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I'm the worst

I am sure you are not. People who tear pages out of books to use for their scrapbooking projects make me cringe the most.

But the use of a marker pen in a book makes me cringe, too. Especially the markers that bleed through to the other side of the page. I prefer to keep the hard copy books in my personal library in pristine condition.

Which is one reason (among many) that I adore my Kindle reader. I can electronically highlight (as well as electronically bookmark) any passage (or page) that I please in an ebook. Plus, my personal notes and bookmarks can be instantly found again with a simple search function in the ebook -- unlike in a hard copy book where one has to physically go through every page.

The only drawback is that I've found that I now prefer to purchase two copies of every book that I love -- one to affectionately keep on my treasured library shelves, and one for my Kindle.