Talk:Renaissance of the 12th century

Untitled
Hi, Stbalbach. You just edited the section about Scholasticism and pointed that scholasticism is a method, not a philosophy. I am familiar with your definition of scholasticism (and I like it), but I am also familiar with it being described as a philosophy in some texts (and also read works suggesting that both definitions existed and were both valid...). My experience trying to read about it makes me believe that it’s hard for people to agree about WHAT scholasticism really was, and what the scholastics defended... Moreover, no one seems to agree about which scholar was indeed a scholastic, or who wasn’t a scholastic, or who was anti-scholastic…

If you can point me to any good reference in the Internet about this topic it would be great. I’ve been confused about it for months. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

People get confused because scholasticism was orignally applied to philosophy so when you talk about medieval philosophy, your talking scholasticism, it's become synonymous. But it's just a tool or didactic system, not a philosophical view of the world. The scholastic method has been applied to other things besides philosophy. I'm not sure what to say but any text that calls it a philosophy is incorrect or unclear in its terminology. Some sources:


 * John W. Baldwin, The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 1000-1300, 1997.
 * Philip Daileader, The High Middle Ages, The Teaching Company, 2001. (Daileader is PhD Harvard U., Medieval History, and currently teaches at William and Mary, this was my primary source for the Scholasticism article).

-- Stbalbach 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronological focus
The article at present spills over into the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, talking about all sorts of things that happened after the rise of the universities and the emergence of scholasticism. More appropriate would be the discussion of the rise of the Universities from the cathedral schools of the Twelfth century.

The discussions of major thirteenth and fourteenth century figures like Scotus, Ockham, Buridan, and Oresme are totally inappropriate. I don't have time to attack this right now, but I will cut out a few totally irrelevant areas.

In general, the outline for this article can be pretty well defined by the contents of Haskins and Benson, et al. --SteveMcCluskey 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, this is probably the first time a read this observation, and I agree with it... ...Which is kinda awkward because, reviewing the edit history of the article, I just noticed that I was the one who reintroduced the discussions about thirteenth and fourteenth century figures after they were (correctly) removed. --- Sorry, my mistake. I'll try to fix it now. --Leinad-Z (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree me too! But I think the naming is awkward, not the article contents. I get the impression that there was a general Europaean Renaissance that started in the 12th century, then collapsed because of the Black Death, and restarted where it dropped off in perhaps late 15th century. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I propose renaming to Renaissance of High Middle Age Europe or some such. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys, I just realized that your train of thought here is probably the more correct one. First of all there was no 12th century *Renaissance* -- that's clear from looking at the now gutted version of this article after removing anything from the 13th century.  What this was, was a kind of corner-turning, or first awakening.  The *real* renaissance happens in the middle of the 13th century.  But then this article has significant overlap with the article on the higher middle ages.  But I also really dislike the idea of relying on a single author to base a Wikipedia article around unless the article admits this up front.  If we want to go with renaming the article, with the idea of extending the range of this renaissance to the 13th century, then we ought to include the materials from other authors.  As far as I can tell the middle of the 13th century is the absolute crucial birth of science in Europe, and this article should essentially trace the path from Abelard, the reintroduction of Aristotle and Scholasticism, right up until Albert Magnus and Theodoric of Freiberg. Qed (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is preposterous! This really looks like people are making the ultra-amateurish mistake of thinking the 12th century includes the 1200s.  My immediate impulse was to go through and simply delete anything from 13th century onward.  But as soon as I do that, this article will become VERY thin.  Roughly speaking this is the awakening of the Europeans from the sleep of the "Dark Ages", so can we retitle this either to "Renaissance of the 13th century" and make references of "beginnings" of the Renaissance having a few roots in the 12th century but mainly started in 1250 or so (there are a lot of things that were happening by then, including Alburt Magnus' discovery of Arsenic, etc)?  Or perhaps "Post-Dark Ages Renaissance" or something like that?  This needs immediate correction. Qed (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since nobody else seems interested, I just deleted anything I could find that obviously came from 13th century or later. Qed (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Historians often extend the period's definition beyond exact century boundaries. Swanson uses 1050-1250AD. Haskins has it starting from 1070. I’ve seen 1070-1315 on the ‘net. Let’s see what scholars and reliable sources take as defining period of the 12th century renaissance. I agree with SteveMcCluskey (above) that we should use scholars like Haskins for the definition. Unfortunately, I'll have to borrow Haskins again before I can say something definite. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And why would Wikipedia defer to the conventions of historians? If you want to extend the range of "The 12th century renaissance" then you have to put the title in scare quotes, because you are intending for it not to be taken literally.  Or else you have to put specific verbiage that says: "When historians refer to the Renaissance of the 12th century they are not talking about a period of time described by the 12th century".  Wikipedia should use historical record for citations and for establishing topics -- that doesn't mean using their conventions or their practices.  I don't care who this "Haskins" is.  Historians are not well known for their objectivity; Wikipedia *IS*. Qed (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you know we rely on reliable sources and avoid original research. Haskins looms large in this area. His book is still the book on the subject. While Haskins (and others) do indeed talk about the rebirth that centers on the 12th century, it does extend across century boundaries. Let's reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relying on | single sources has the same problem. Enforcing that the 12th century does not extend past 1199 is not original research.  Articles are written to wikipedian conventions, not historian's conventions.  Look, George Saliba, who concentrates on the Arabic golden era has plenty to say on this subject.  Why not quote him as well?  His thesis is that the European Renaissance relied on a back and forth exchange between the Arabs and the Christian Europeans during the 11th through 14th centuries for recovering their intellectual culture. Qed (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that the article should include an entire topic, rather than be constrained by strict chronological boundaries. And, from the discussion above, it feels as if this topic extends outside the 12th century.  Once we know the topic, we need to name the article to represent the "common name" for that topic.  In this case, the accepted name that topic in historical studies.  Whether this common name is illogical is beside the point. Bluap (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well then you should also chime in for the name change request for this article. As long as the title is as it reads, it *cannot* extend beyond the 12 century.  If it does extend beyond the 12th century "Renaissance of the 12th century" is a misnomer and this has to be heavily explained, or the title has to be put in "scare quotes" if you want to keep pushing this.  Wikipedia commonly renames articles to reflect the *best* title, irrespective of the "common name".  If the article were correctly titled something like "The European Renaissance of the Higher Middle Ages", then you can explain in the introductory paragraph that some authors use the name "... 12th century" reflecting limited understanding from the early research on this topic. Qed (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The title is clear and is named after the book which brought scholarly interest to a neglected period. The activities in the article lead to or stem from a movement that largely took place in the 12th century. In a sense, a plateau was reached at that point which was a leap from previous intellectual thought and provided as basis for the next leap. Thus, the title is adequate to guide the reader to what is indeed a 12th century phenomena even if it gently crosses boundaries. There is less disagreement and ambiguity in the use of the phrase "Renaissance of the 12th century" as there is in the phrase The Sixties. There are scholars that will weigh in on the debate about history being continuous and history taking quantum leaps. The end to the 12th century renaissance may be such a time and I'd like to hear from those who have sources commenting on the transition to the 13th century. This could help clarify how the subject evolved. In sum, it's a topic in intellectual history not a arbitrary base-10 numerical classification. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The title is only clear if it truly refers only to the 12th century. Wikipedia has rules that book author's don't have to adhere to.  The fact that the title makes sense to some book author has no bearing on the mission of Wikipedia.  If I read a Wikipedia article at it says "something of the 12th century" then the substance of the article has to restrict itself to the dates 1100-1199.  That is all.  Whether or not there is more or less contention versus the 1960s is a qualitative claim you are making and *ALSO* not explaining anywhere in the article.  Here's a quote from the 1960s article: "The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and beyond."  Here it is clear that the term "1960s" is being defined outside the scope of 1960-1969, furthermore such a claim could easily be backed up by contemporary widely accepted sources and is not contentious.  In the present article we have: "The Renaissance of the 12th century was a period of many changes at the outset of the High Middle Ages. ... etc".  Throughout the paragraph there is no hint that the term "The Renaissance of the 12th century" is being redefined to include a larger scope -- it still appears to refer to events from 1100-1199.  Furthermore, your claim that expanding the definition of the 12th century in this context is *NOT* credible, if you only have a single source on the issue, and you can't exceed "historical specialists" as your audience of people who know/accept this.  Your claims that it is just "gently crossing boundaries" is not credible.  Any Renaissance here starts with Alburt Magnus' discovery of arsenic in the mid-13th century, Theodoric of Freiberg's explanation of the rainbow and Nicole Oresme's mean speed theorem.  My premise for saying this is the clear use of the scientific method with the standard applicable ratcheting effect.  Of course this is "original research" so, I can't make suggest that the article reflect my personal theory.  But instead, what I can do is provide the source "Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance" by George Saliba, whose thesis is that the Europeans kick started their Renaissance primarily due to influence from the Arabs.  His dates would be more like 13-15th centuries. Qed (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If we were talking about scientific discoveries by century your argument would have merit. Every century has its scientific discoveries and “Scientific discoveries in the Xth Century” should be bounded by the exact boundaries. Not every century has a renaissance. The “Renaissance of the 12th century” was unexpected by those who maintain that before “The Renaissance” there was nothing but the “dark ages.” Both the Aristotelean revival of the 13th century and the revival of the 12th century preceded and became the foundation for “The Renaissance.” I continually come across authors who are surprised at earlier (and yes lessor) renaissances. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Without science, there *IS* no renaissance. The point of a renaissance is to usher in a period of intellectual growth in which intellectuals are in control of the direction of cultural, philosophical and scientific direction from an organic and self-feedback regime.  So long as the Church maintained control over scholasticism, there could be no such progress.  Science is the "escape hatch" that allowed for all other forms of growth.  For example: Renaissance art became radically improved by 1) being based on realism instead of religious idealism and 2) using geometric projection, from cartography.  The product of Scholasticism was the use of Aristotle's syllogism to create ontological arguments, which had no useful positive influence on the Renaissance.  This is not just original research; it is the implication of George Saliba's book that I referred to above. Qed (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide what a renaissance is. We report what reliable sources say. The article reflects how sources define the subject. Read the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And why do you or Haskins get to decide what it is? Saliba has a clear thesis -- the European Renaissance was kicked off following cultural transference that happened during the 13th century at the earliest.  And he keys off science.  Qed (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The 12th century renaissance was a rebirth of classical literature, not scientific investigations. The ancient scientific works tagged along as part of the translation of literature. Literature was primarily Latin in nature including Latin versions of Greek works. To the student of the 13th century, the 12th may appear more of a study of past works without fully grappling nor applying an active critical analysis to the ideas. In this regard I agree with removing Aquinas from the article. He needs the 12th century foundation but he goes to the next level (as does Roger Bacon). There’s a difference between study and translations of philosophy or science and the actually doing philosophy or science. I have some reservations on some of the content of our article in that it gets ahead of itself. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Renaissance was the rebirth of classic literature". Almost by definition, a renaissance cannot be synonymous with a prior era's literature.  Teaching people to read, and telling them to read good literature from the past is not a Renaissance.  Any Renaissance's influence on literature would have to be in the *type* of *novel* literature it produced.  If all they were doing was translating Homer, Virgil, or other works, then you can't call that a Renaissance.  If you can substantiate this claim of yours, then what you should be doing is giving long lists of actual literary works produced at this time (or reasonable references to them).  Remember the core complaint of Petrarch, was that in fact there was no literature being produced during his lifetime that was comparable to the "classic literature".  By taking this orthogonal point of view, what you are saying is that the 12th-13th century was simultaneously part of the Dark Ages and part of a Renaissance at the same time.  Qed (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * see above comment Jason from nyc (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment above ignores Saliba (who I have now brought up 3 times) and does not address the point other than to say "Haskins says so". Haskins does not set the rules or standards for Wikipedia.  The 1960s article very clearly explains that the very term "1960s" actually refers to a longer period of time.  The current article makes no effort to explain why the 12th century includes the 13th century. Qed (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We have two main books for the “Renaissance of the 12th century” (see the bibliography). I’d like past editors (if they are still around) to argue their case for some of the content even if we assume that the Renaissance we are talking about (whatever the name) is the one Haskins and Benson (et.al.) discuss. I wrote the “Latin Literature” section but have questions about the “Science” section. The 13th century rebirth is distinctive from the 12th qualitatively, not just chronologically. If that doesn’t come across, the article fails. I believe there’s much work to be done but the need for a focus on what climaxes in the 12th century and historians have called “Renaissance of the 12th century” makes for an important chapter in Western thought. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well this is the whole problem, isn't it? A reasonable topic on Wikipedia shouldn't rely on certain "specific experts" or specialists to defend the validity of a topic.  Wikipedia is meant for a general audience and for editors that have any degree of expertise on a topic; I have some knowledge, obviously slanted towards the European scientific renaissance that started in the 13th century.  But there's no way I am going to write a single word about the scientific renaissance that started in the 13th century in an article titled "... of the 12th century". (My knowledge of the 11th-12th century is the fostering of a prepatory state that cannot be termed "Renaissance".) Qed (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * see above comment Jason from nyc (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A discussion of the time boundaries can be found in Swanson’s “The Twelfth-Century Renaissance.” He includes the last 2-3 decades of the 11th and notes this is unproblematic. Our article agrees with this. But the end of the movement and the beginning of scholasticism is more difficult. He notes the canonical year of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) is often chosen but suggests that the translation of Aristotle’s Politics in 1260s “as the signal for the end. Once the full Aristotelian corpus was available, the twelfth-century renaissance could end and Aquinas could really get going.” (see page 5) I suggest we take 1215 as this seems to be the common if arbitrary convention. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. A general audience will be unfamiliar with Sawnson's argument.  *I* am unfamiliar with his argument.  And I don't see how there is any premise by which you simply sweep this under the rug and ignore it.  If there is a reason why you are allowed to extend the definition of "12th century" to include some time into the 13th century, then you have to spell it out, and put the title in scare quotes, or do something that gives Wikipedia an excuse for otherwise literally writing straight up definition failing non sequiturs.  And seriously?  1260?  I am sorry, but I can't stomach that.  1260 is *NOT* the 12th century and is already at least a decade *PAST* the start of the start of the scientific Renaissance. Qed (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not care what you can stomach. You obviously refuse to rely on reliable sources for this topic. We have had a consensus for this article based on the reliable sources appropriate for the topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jason on this one. The name of the topic is supposed to be the common name for the topic.  It doesn't matter whether the name makes logical sense or not - as we all know, English rarely makes logical sense, Bluap (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh the "Renaissance of the 12th century" is a common name? If I said that to anyone with 10 miles of where I am currently sitting, not one of them would have any inkling that this includes the 11th and 13th centuries.  (Anyone who knew anything of this topic would probably dispute me and claim that the Renaissance didn't start until 15th century, and they would be more right that you people.)  Everyone knows the term "1960s" and that article clarifies the fuzziness of the dates explicitly and correctly.  Nobody but a handful of specialists knows what "Renaissance of the 12th century" means.  I mean, Hilter employed many specialists who wrote all sorts of things about the Jews.  Shall we cite their opinion on the article on Judaism?  Even if you have good information coming from specialists, it is not for Wikipedia to adopt their way of thinking.  Their citations must be translated to the audience of Wikipedia.  And this audience doesn't think that 12 = 11, 12 or 13 because those numbers are close enough.  There is no weakness of the English language here.  The two choices 1) Rename the article and add in some verbiage like "Historians who specialize in this topic sometimes refer to this as the Renaissance of the 12th century, although it usually includes analysis of events from the 11th and 13th centuries", 2) Delete any reference to anything outside of the 12th century.  Both options would correct this article without any issue with the English language.  As it is, the article just makes Wikipedia look amateurish.  Seriously the only conclusion I could draw from this when first reading this article was that some ignorant Wikipedian thought that the 12th century meant 1200-1299. Qed (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Compass
Section Technology: The invention of the (navigation) compass is disputed. I've read a claim that it was independently discovered in Europe and China. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Influence from the Moors in Spain
It appears to me that the influence which came to Europe from the Moors in Spain is greatly under-estimated. Without that influence no kind of renaissance had been possible. I copy to here what I wrote on the talk page to the article Bettany Hughes

I just watched "When the Moors Ruled in Europe" narrated by Bettany Hughes and I am very impressed by the program. I already knew the most essential facts the program showed, but it is very valuable to have those facts put together in a single program which is accessible to all people in the world. Look up When the Moors Ruled in Europe Bettany Hughes and you will find that the program is available for free in many places on the internet, for example here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daz0n5l8cJE

I have seen many programs narrated by Bettany Hughes before and I think she is a very good narrator. This program about the Moors in Spain is especially valuable because it describes how the Greek ideas about dialogue as a tool for progression of knowledge, and the necessary companion, freedom of speech, the idea of democracy, with its necessary companion equality, and the development of sciences came to Europe via the Moors in Spain. These ideas are the basis for humanism, which broke the power of the Pope and slowly but surely transformed Europe into the modern world we see today.

Very little of these new ideas came from Italy, most of them came from the Moors in Spain.

The Catholic church fought against these ideas with every means possible for hundreds of years. When the idea of equality among people reached the minds of the people in France they realized that they should not accept to be treated like animals by the higher classes and the king so they started the French Revolution, which had a very big influence on world history.

A little later the idea of equality created the worker's unions, socialism, social democracy and communism. Today socialism and communism are dead words, but social democracy, a mixed system, a compromise between socialism and capitalism is in rule in most of the countries in the world. And science and technology are now free from all religious limitations.

Bettany Hughes is very important because she makes valuable science and knowledge available to people in general, which is also obvious when we hear that her programs have been watched by more than 100 million people. Very few academic authors or speakers have reached such a numerous audience. Roger491127 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh absolutely. In fact, one of the premier scholars in this field is professor George Saliba. I think most of his books are about this subject.  This page should just be dripping with data about the Islamic influence on the European "intellectual recovery". Qed (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of astrolabe was in tenth century
Under the technology section it says "The astrolabe returned to Europe...". That is too vague. Does this mean that its use became more widespread? Because it was introduced before that. According to Rechard Erdoes in A.D. 1000: A World on the Brink of Apocalybse Berkeley, California, Ulysses Press, 1988 and 1998 the scholar Gerbert, also known as Pope Sylvester II, used and constructed astrolabes. "In the opinion of William of Malmesbury, an English historian... 'Gerbert surpassed Ptolemy with the astrolabe' " page 49. And "Gerbert was also a serious tinkerer who, with his own hands, put together not only spheres and astrolabes..." page 112. Accordingly, I suggest the page author either expand upon that statement or delete it. (Unless more authoritative sources disagree with Erdoes, of course.) Aefields (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You make a good technical point, but you too must look more carefully. After Sylvester II started using the astrolabe, re-introduced the armillary sphere, learned to use the Indian number system, etc., etc., who followed his lead?  What was the *result* of him learning all these things?  Did he disseminate it to the rest of Europe?  Can you find a single other person that learned either from him, or from the same people he did?  The point is that he is an isolated one off and this speaks to a larger issue.  Europe didn't just need a reintroduction of culture in a single person or a single source.  The entire region was drastically under-educated, illiterate, and unable to naturally absorb any cultural input.  They couldn't propagate a "meme" for example.  They needed a much bigger wake up call.  This started when they took over *all* of Spain, including the stocked library and *population* of educated people, especially in Toledo. Qed (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Latin Literature
I added section on Latin Literature. The first half of Haskins' book focuses on the revival of Roman literature, Latin poetry and letters. Haskins' book is still a respected classic text. If there is new research please add it to the existing article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The revival of scholarship on Roman Law is also an important chapter in the 12th century Renaissance. The University of Bologna was an important center. Haskins' book covers this. I was hoping to add a section on Roman Law but haven't had the time to get back to this article. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Vanja Hamzić material is largely gibberish.
I recommend deleting the subject matter related to Vanja Hamzić. It is irrelevant to the extent it can be deciphered. The refeference to the Seljuks is mysterious as are the legal references. The reason sodomy is involved is unclear and probably needs to be when the topic is a rebirth of learning and the arts in the 11th century. That part of the section, added by an anonymous user a year and a half ago, should be deleted. Sych (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In reading my suggestion I noticed I wrote 11th not 12th century. Sych (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I came here to say this, it's a lot of nonsense from a literal who just to say "the 12th century doesn't live up to my 21st century liberal ideals", and it's easy to guess who might have added this. --90.156.104.160 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As a regular reader who just stumbled accross this article due to recent forays into history (currently reading Norman Davies 'Europe') I wholeheartedly agree. This section is obscure and its relevance is questionable. 165.12.252.111 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)