Posted on 12/03/2005 2:07:56 AM PST by HarleyD
“I did not ignore your argument. Your evidence was from later than the 8th c. or much earlier or from the non-Western areas.”
Yes, you did ignore my argument. Where is your counter to either Beowulf or the work of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie? No where. I never said the issue was the early Middle Ages. The argument was about Luther’s claims. Then it was about this idea that everyone who could read could read Latin. That’s an assumption, an assumption without evidence.
“ I gave the evidence to support my claims and to counter yours.”
So where’s your counter for Ladurie? He shows there were peasants, a minority most assuredly, who could read 14th century dialects of French and knew no Latin.
“When someone does not accept the validity of your arguments it does not mean he's ignoring them.”
So is Ladurie lying? Ever read Von Bunge’s urkundebbuch?
“He disagrees with them as you disagree with his. But now I will ignore you, having not ignored your argument.”
Now you will ignore me because I dared to point out you ignored the evidence. Again, where is your counter to Ladurie?
“In this exchange, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing: claiming to change the terms of the argument, inventing a straw man(the claim that "literary culture" is different from written literature)..”
I never claimed that. I used “culture” only to show you were imputing something I’d never claimed.
“… and evading my point (I recognized written Old English for the later period but not for the 8thc;”
What you recognize is clearly irrelevant. Beowulf was written long before the 12th century.
“… you "refute" me by claiming I'm so dumb as not to know Old English is Germanic,”
I never said you were dumb for not knowing Old English is Germanic. Never. You just invented that claim. Just like you invented the strawmen you’ve used against me. Want the proof? Show me where I said you were dumb for not knowing Old English is Germanic. Show me. You have a very active imagination.
“… which was not the point--the chronology was, but you do not address that).”
Because your chronology has nothing to do with the argument about Luther and little to do with medieval vernacular literacy. Your chronology doesn’t take evidence into account.
“But then, you would never do what you accuse others of, now, would you?”
Nope, I wouldn’t. And I didn’t.
Sir, what part of 8thc. do you not get? Ladurie's evidence is 14thc. From the start I emphasized the existence of literary vernacular culture from the 12thc onward. What I dispute is the 700s and you still have not addressed that. Offering me 14thc evidence for the 8thc won't cut it.
I countered Beowulf. There is no evidence for a non-Latin-educated Anglo-Saxon reading culture in the 700s. Who claims that Beowulf was written and read in the 700s? I recognized Anglo-Saxon literature, sermons, Alfred's translations in the late 9thc but even there there's no evidence of a purely vernacular reading public for that. It's possible but there's clear no evidence that people with no training in reading Latin were able to read those sermons or Alfred's translations. And you have provided no evidence because everyone recognizes that by the 14thc everywhere people were reading Italian and English and German. Where's your evidence for 8thc vernacular readers? For late 9thc vernacular readers who had not first learned to read at least some Latin but found it easier to read Anglo-Saxon--that's the likely readerswhip for Alfred or Aelfric. And that was my point from the start. So don't throw your Ladurie at me. I've read him and I agree with him--for the 14thc.
First, I’d like to point out that you said you were going to ignore me, but you responded to my post. Clearly you can’t even stick to your word. So, you make strawmen, ignore evidence, made at least one claim of an insult that never existed in any post I ever posted, and now you’re shown to be dishonest because you can’t even stick to your own word. Thank you for going to such lengths to show us all your true character.
You wrote:
“Sir, what part of 8thc. do you not get? Ladurie's evidence is 14thc. From the start I emphasized the existence of literary vernacular culture from the 12thc onward.”
I perfectly understand that Beowulf is from the 8th or 9th century. I also understand that Ladurie uses evidence from the 14th century. My point still stands no matter what medieval century the evidence is from. There were more vernacular readers in the Middle Ages than is usually said. Luther story is less and less believable.
“What I dispute is the 700s and you still have not addressed that.”
Since Luther was born in 1483 I need not address a point made about the 700’s since I made no reference to it.
“Offering me 14thc evidence for the 8thc won't cut it.”
Except, of course, I never did that even once. I offered evidence from different centuries. I never claimed one century was another or that evidence from one century was from another. Again, you’re claiming I said or did something I never did.
“I countered Beowulf. There is no evidence for a non-Latin-educated Anglo-Saxon reading culture in the 700s. Who claims that Beowulf was written and read in the 700s? I recognized Anglo-Saxon literature, sermons, Alfred's translations in the late 9thc but even there there's no evidence of a purely vernacular reading public for that. It's possible but there's clear no evidence that people with no training in reading Latin were able to read those sermons or Alfred's translations.”
The issue is not whether they had some Latin training or not. The vernacular is not Latin. Some tarining in Latin doesn’t make their reading of the vernacular less of a reading of the vernacular. You keep creating this straw man: that all those who could read could read Latin. Some training in Latin, which may mean almost nothing, did not make people in readers of Latin.
“And you have provided no evidence because everyone recognizes that by the 14thc everywhere people were reading Italian and English and German.”
Except that Luther was born in 1483. You just admitted that Luther was born in a time in which people “everywhere” were reading the vernacular making it even more likely that Luther was lying.
“Where's your evidence for 8thc vernacular readers?”
Where’s your evidence against it?
“For late 9thc vernacular readers who had not first learned to read at least some Latin but found it easier to read Anglo-Saxon--that's the likely readerswhip for Alfred or Aelfric. And that was my point from the start. So don't throw your Ladurie at me. I've read him and I agree with him--for the 14thc.”
Except he prove me corrct – there were more readers of the vernacular (even from the lower classes) in the Middle Ages than we usually think and that makes it all the more likely that Luther was lying about his claims. Thanks for admitting my point. If you admit that you agree with Ladurie, no matter what you say about the 8th century, then you admit that I was right that there were more vernacular readers in the Middle Ages thnn we usually say. Thanks for admitting I was right! Of course, I wouldn't know what your admission is worth since you've already proven yourself to be dishonest and violate your own word.
What you now make into your strawman point, namely that there were more vernacular readers in the Middle Ages than generally claimed is one that I never took issue with. It's also totally irrelevant to my original response to Harley because that response had to do with the 8thc. The "more vernacular readers than generally assumed" applies to the late Middle Ages. You can have that point--I have no horse in that race and never did. From the start I asserted a vernacular reading culture from the 12thc onward.
So go fight with yourself.
This is what you wrote: “The argument you are attempting to conduct with me is an argument with others on this thread. I responded specifically to Harley's point about Charlemagne mandating the production of a standardized Latin Vulgate text in the 8thc. You proudly proclaimed me wrong. You have offered no evidence in support of your claim that I was wrong.”
This is what I said:
I said the previous poster was wrong when he claimed THE CHURCH MANDATED the Bible be in Latin ONLY in the early Middle Ages to the exclusion of all other languages. The simple fact is there was no such mandate from the Church. Now, because you repeatedly make such strawman all the time, I will demonstrate that you are wrong on what you are now claiming I said:
Harley, in post #25 wrote this: “Addedum: It should be also pointed out in the eight century the Catholic Church mandated Bibles be only in the Latin Vulgate format. Latin was only taught through the Church. Even if the Bible would have found its way into the hands of the masses, many of them wouldn't have been able to read it.”
Now, who, or what, according to Harley, “mandated” Bibles be only in Latin? He says the Church. Notice, that’s the CHURCH.
In post # 50, however, you wrote: “Actually, on this point Harley, for once, is half-right. He just doesn't understand the point of the mandating of the Vulgate. In the Carolingian renaissance of the 8thc Charlemagne instructed clerics to standardize the text of the Bible. The Vulgate had long been dominant but variant readings from the Old Latin and other versions were floating around. Charlemagne wanted standardization. He mandated textual criticism, trying to produce a standard, critical edition of the Latin text.”
Clearly you have changed, refined, altered – however you want to put it – what Harley actually wrote. Harley didn’t mention Charlemagne at all in his posts. You only brought him up in post #50 – twenty-five posts after Harley made his original erroneous point about the Church supposedly mandating that the Bible be in Latin in the 8th century.
I, of course, creating no strawmen as you did, pointed out that Charlemagne is not the Church and the Church is not Charlemagne: In post #53 I noted: “No, the fact is not true. He said that Latin was mandated. It wasn't. 1) Charlemagne was not the Church, 2) Mandating a Bible for the Frankish clergy is not what Harley described, 3) What Harley described never happened.” Clearly Harley was wrong. You knew Harley was wrong. You yourself wrote: “"So the point Harley was using the fact to demonstrate is absurd but the fact is true.” And, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Harley made a true statement but the point he thought he was proving by it is false and absurdly false. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
You desparately tried to spin this attempt to spin with: “In the situation that obtained in Charlemagne's empire in the late 8th, Latin simply was the only literary written language.” And I had to state the incredibly obvious: “Yes, but EUROPE was not made up of only Charlemagne's empire.” You were creating strawmen. I was not.
You even tried this idiotic remark: " Yes it sure was mandated as the "only" Bible. Why else do you think it was mandated?"
But it wasn’t mandated by the CHURCH as I pointed out yet again. That was what Harley was saying, and that’s what you spinned into Charlemagne as if it mattered since Charlemagne neither ruled all Europe, or the Church.
As I wrote: “I don't think it was mandated at all by any authority that had the power to do so in the Church. No matter what Charlemagne pushed on the Church in Frankish lands is not the Church or the limits of Europe. I am still waiting to see Harley produce evidence for this Bible mandate from the church. Did it ever happen? No. Does it matter what Charlemagne did? No: 1) Charlemagne was not the Church, 2) Frankish empire was not Europe, but only part of it. You and Harley have completely ignored these obvious points.”
Now, you most recently wrote: “You have offered no evidence in support of your claim that I was wrong.” Why would I since I never once claimed you were wrong about Charlemagne mandating a particular Vulgate in parishes? I never once said that that never happened. I said it didn’t matter what Charlemagne did since he wasn’t the Church, nor was the Frankish Empire the Church. See how you create strawmen? Show me ONCE, even ONCE where I ever once said that Charlemagne didn’t do what you claimed? Why do you feel compelled to be dishonest?
You also wrote: “What you now make into your strawman point, namely that there were more vernacular readers in the Middle Ages than generally claimed is one that I never took issue with.”
And you never supported it either, but what you did do was try to attack that point by claiming that anyone who could read the vernacular already had training in Latin. The simple fact is that that is overstated to say the least. You then trooped on and on with that overstatement, never offering any evidence of course. In a sense it was impossible for you to offer evidence anyway.
“ It's also totally irrelevant to my original response to Harley because that response had to do with the 8thc. The "more vernacular readers than generally assumed" applies to the late Middle Ages. You can have that point--I have no horse in that race and never did. From the start I asserted a vernacular reading culture from the 12thc onward.”
But you still tried to spin Charlemagne as the Church.
“So go fight with yourself.”
No, I think you should fight yourself. After all, you spin arguments, lie about not responding to posts, create strawmen, etc. You could argue with yourself as well as any other multiple personality sufferer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.