In one sense, what makes something ‘medieval’ is obvious: it is the ‘between times’, the time between the classical and the modern. The term itself means precisely that, via French from from Latin ‘medium’ (middle) and ‘aevum’ (era or period).
But that only puts the question off one level: because what makes something “classical” and what makes something “modern”?
Of the two, defining ‘classical’ is easier. The classical period of a civilisation is the period when it has its first flowering of art, literature, culture and thought; establishing forms of the same that become recurring patterns in that society or civilisation. So ancient Greece and ancient Rome constitute the classical period of Western civilisation. The period of the ruling Caliphate from 642 to the C9th constitutes the classical period of Islam. The Nara and Heian periods the classical period of Japanese history, and so forth.
What makes something “modern”? My preferred answer has been that one is in the modern era when a society experiences a continuing breadth and rate of technological and social change that is discernable to its own inhabitants. The problem with that is that one might say that of of C12th and C13th Latin Christendom: and we would not describe that as “modern”.
The other feature we use when presenting at schools to distinguish a medieval period is one of warrior rule: distinguishing a warrior from a soldier.
A soldier is paid for by taxes: his salary, weapons, equipment and training typically using standard gear in an organised unit. He is, in effect, an armed employee and his watchword is duty: fulfilling the obligations he is paid to undertake. The Roman Army had soldiers. Modern armies have soldiers.
A warrior owns his own weapons, his family probably arranged his training, he is likely to have some direct income source, owes personal service and his watchword is honour: fulfilling the service he has promised to uphold. The knight, the samurai, the Iranian azadan, the Central Eurasian iqta (or similar tax farming fief) holder is a warrior: medieval armies are dominated by warriors.
So the classical period in Islam ends, and the medieval period begins, when the Buyids take power from the Caliphs and begin to distribute iqta fiefs. The classical period of Japan ends, and the medieval period begins, when the bakufu (aka Shogunate), the military government of the warrior clans, is set up so Japan becomes increasingly dominated by samurai politics. Classical civilisation ends when the Western Roman Empire collapses and Germanic kingdoms dominated by warriors owing personal service take over. Developing into the “ultimate” period of warrior rule, knightly Europe.
Hence the modern period begins when warrior rule ends: when rulers put armies of tax-paid soldiers, not personal-service warriors, into the field. This is a process of transition rather than an “on/off” thing. For example, seriously outnumbered English armies won victories such as Crecy, Poitiers, Najera and Agincourt not simply because of the longbow, but because they had much better command-and-control than their enemies. (They had much the same arms mix at Bannockburn, but got horribly beaten because the English command-and-control on the field was crap.) English kings had “cashed out” knights service and used their funds to hire companies from their nobility and gentry on a contract basis: a sort of militant national capitalism. It meant the English King or Prince in charge could give orders he could reasonably expect to be obeyed. In the “personal service” armies of their opponents, command-and-control was much less reliable.
Nevertheless, in European history, the Battle of Fornovo in 1495 is a good marker, since both the Kingdom of France and the Italian League were fielding armies of tax-paid soldiers – recognisably modern armies even though they were still using knights/men-at-arms as heavy cavalry. Certainly, people at the time realised things were changing – hence figures such as Bayard (who famously knighted his sovereign, Francis I) and Maximilian being referred to during their lives as “the last knight”.
The medieval period in Japan ends with the abolition of the Shogunate and the Meiji Restoration of 1867. So, close to four centuries after it does in Latin Christendom, but the medieval period in Japan also starts about seven centuries later than it does in Latin Christendom (and does not occur due to any sort of social collapse).
Trying to date end of the medieval period in Islam is a bit trickier. The abolition of the privileges of the sipahis and their change into cavalry soldiers in 1828 by the Ottoman Sultan is a good marker. Particularly as it comes two year after the “disbanding” slaughter of the Janissaries (known as ‘the Auspicious Incident’: the Janissaries were hated by that time) and 10 years after the massacre of the Citadel ended mamluk power in Egypt. But it is a reasonable question to ask, for example, if Afghanistan has ever entirely got rid of warlords.
Then again, the period of warrior rule in the Scottish highlands probably did not end until the post-Culloden suppressions, including the 1746 abolition of the right of justice of clan chiefs.
So, a medieval period is a period of history between a classical era and the modern period marked by warrior rule – and different civilisations have their medieval periods at different times. While modernity is a period where armies are of tax-paid soldiers and a society experiences a continuing breadth and rate of technological and social change that is discernable to its own inhabitants. Which also does not happen to all civilisations at the same time.
Just because we are all on the same globe does not mean we all enter modernity in the same way and at the same time. After all, various remaining hunter-gatherer societies have still not made it into the Neolithic Revolution.
History happens, but, even in its more general patterns, in its particular ways in particular places.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have just managed to explain in a nutshell why it is easier for high school students to grasp the Romans in particular before much medieval civilisation. A society that is only spottily religious, with a professional all-volunteer army and a developed rule of law seems much more 'modern' (whatever that means), because it has more institutions in common with what we have now.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to convey the real and very big differences with antiquity is to highlight things like chattel slavery or temple prostitution (both very discomforting to modern people).
Chattel slavery and temple prostitution are great examples. But yes, we stress to the kids that the Roman Empire worked much more like a modern state than did anything "in the middle". (Think also sewerage, central heating, postal service, roads, piped water.)
ReplyDeleteThe notion of a "Renaissance" was always a period "of getting back to" what the Romans had achieved. In the final "The Renaissance", they actually were in the sense of administrative capacity. In various fields, (e.g. technology, capital markets, institutional flexibility) they were ahead. In others -- status of women, religious freedom, intellectual freedom -- not so much.
Which is all why "What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us?" works so well
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty hard core. For me the Classical period dates from the day the Athenians booted out the Spartan-backed usurper Isagoras, recalling Kleisthenes for his exile in 508 BC. Kleisthenes established what even recognize as humanity's first democracy. I date the demise of the Classical period to the death of Aristophanes in 386 BC.
ReplyDeleteNot coincidentally 508 BC to 386 BC maps almost perfectly the birth and peak of both tragic poetry and Old Comedy. Both genres continued to be performed of course, but the golden era had passed along with classical democracy.
Most of the good stuff many describe as "Classical" wrt Rome is more appropriately conceptualized as borrowings for the post-Alexandrian Hellenic civilization.
There really should be much greater emphasis on the first "Renaissance" in the 12/13th centuries. A fascinating course could focus exclusively on the early history of the University of Paris, with the next course focusing on the University of Padua.
ReplyDeletePeter: too hard-core for me. Cutting Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus out of the Classical period goes too far for me :)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the Renaissance of the C12th is a wonderful subject of study. For destroying mythconceptions about medieval Latin Christendom, if nothing else.
Lorenzo, you don't just lose Marcus Aurelius using that very early dating, but Polybius, Cicero and Julius Caesar, not to mention all the Roman jurists and the Roman poets/satirists.
ReplyDeleteI suspect my emphasis on the Romans comes from an interest in institutions and law, and a relative de-emphasis on art and culture (as most people know, I think the latter are generally overrated, and are often only super-important to the people who do them).
There is a reason why the IMF and the World Bank still bang on about institutions and the rule of law when it comes to the developing world. They're kind of essential.
Well, yes, indeed. I was reaching for the far end: everything before that gets included. But, as you say, that covers a lot.
ReplyDeleteThere is something of a long term fight in Western classicism between the philoHellenes and the philoRomans. It depends to some extent on what drives you. Lawyers are always going to like the Romans.
It's a bit like the forever fight between Platonists and Aristotelians. (Pope Benedict is a Platonist: it shows.)
And yes, institutions are the key thing in social outcomes.
Confining the Classical Age as I do way, in no way implies a slur on Marcus Aurelius or Plotinus! :) My point is about periodization, less than individual sensibility. Having said that, I would not characterize Marcus Aurelius as a Classical man. He was a Greek (Hellenistic) educated Roman.
ReplyDeleteIt is not possible to see the Classical Age as seamlessly extending from Classical Athens to imperial Rome. While the Greeks were inventing historiography, tragedy, democracy, geometry, and astronomy, the Roman were still swinging from the trees.
It is true that Rome and Greece had weak cross-cultural relations since at least the 7th century BC due to Greek colonizations of Sicily and southern Italy. Even during Greece's Classical era, the influence on Rome was negligible with two very important exceptions:
1. Rome's foundation legal/Constitutional document - the Twelve Tables - written in the middle of the 5th century. Once more, this was a direct borrowing from Greece's Solon's Laws. In fact, a Roman delegation travelled to Greece to learn from Greek laws and constitutionalism. The Twelve Tables were an attempt to graft Athenian democratic institutions and processes onto the Roman situation. However, they never succeeded in dealing with the power asymmetries between the patricians and the plebeians.
2. But the Romans did not really start to absorb the trappings of Greek 'classicism' until Rome's conquest of Macedonia/Greece around 150 BC, 250 years after the end of the Classical era. What finally brought the Romans down from the trees was their exposure to the Greek education system after 146 BC, which they adopted eagerly.
The earliest Roman satires and theatre - such as Plautus - were in the genre of Greek Hellenistic New Comedy, such as Menander, rather than Aristophanes' Old Comedy of the Classical era.
3. By the late Republic - the time of Cicero - Rome's elite were all educated either in Athens or in Rome by Greek slaves. Or Horace's famous quip:
Graecia capta ferum victorim cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio
"Captive Greece took captive her fierce conqueror, and introduced her arts into rude Latium. Thus flowed off the rough Saturnian numbers, and delicacy expelled the rank venom: but for a long time there remained, and at this day remain traces of rusticity. For late [the Roman writer] applied his genius to the Grecian pages; and enjoying rest after the Punic wars, began to search what useful matter Sophocles, and Thespis, and Aeschylus afforded: he tried, too, if he could with dignity translate their works."
Indeed this Greek reconquering of the Romans is clear as early as the mid 2nd century BC, when the Greek historian, Polybius, spent 20 years as a - very well treated - hostage of the Romans, during which time he tutored the Roman upper classes, and wrote his classic The Histories an example of classical Greek historiography - a genre hitherto unknown to the Romans.
4. A century later during the so-called Golden Age of Latin literature, Cicero was a classic example of what Horace was getting at. All Cicero's work was firstly a translation of Plato and Aristotle, and secondly a few extensions to the peculiarities of Rome at the time.
ReplyDeleteCatallus' poetry was not influenced by Greek epic or lyric poetry of Pindar or Sappho, but - one again - by Hellenistic pastoral. Virgil's attempt to emulate Greek epic failed dismally
Even Rome's literary high point - the Silver Age - was just an attempt to emulate Greek genres of old. Seneca's attempts at tragedy were mixed; Juvenal's non poetic satires were one bright spot, while the novel was a definite Roman innovation, of which Petronius did the genre proud.
Apart from the Novel, about the only thing the Romans didn't nick from Hellenistic Greece was jurisprudence. But as noted above, it was always firmly rooted in Plato and Aristotle, and other works of Greek philosophy. However, we must remember that the legacy of Roman law and jurisprudence does not come from the Roman jurists who flourished for only about 250 years from the Julio-Claudian's until proto-fascism once more returned to the empire, following the assassination of the last Severan emperor in 235 AD. Rather, Roman law was bequeathed to the world only through the labors of the Christian emperors from Constantine to Justinian.
And THAT is why I am hardcore about the Classic era! :)
I think it's also fair to say that Justinian was a bit like the people who put together the various US Restatements. Interesting collators, but not much more. He (or more particularly poor Tribonian, who had to keep taking himself off lest he be accused of something untoward) did some nice collating, and a great deal of over-simplification. The law codes of Theodosius (comprising the work of Constantine) are written in the most terrible babu Latin and prove if nothing else that the Christians (a) did not get commerce (b) spent most of their time hating on the gays and the wimminz and (c) could not write.
ReplyDeleteAnything written with clarity was produced before 235AD, particularly the work of Ulpian and Gaius (the latter, of course, survived independently). Always remember we have more of Ulpian than we have of any Church father, including Augustine. A tribute to Tribonian's good taste if nothing else.
The evidence for Romans borrowing any of their laws from the Greeks is very dubious, something of which Peter at least should be aware: the differences, including rules of evidence, presumption of innocence and slavery as a non-natural state indicates an early (and very considerable) difference. The Greeks did not do law well, I think it's fair to say, especially not commercial law, contract law and the law with respect to legal personality. And the 12 Tables was interesting but astonishingly primitive, and rapidly superseded.
I've always suspected the Athenians were overrated misogynistic gayboys, and the Christians were overeated wannabe misogynistic gayboys. The former, at least, had the merit of candour. Consistent with my view that no oppressed group gets a free pass, I'll call out the gay boy who only has his mother and his sister's number in his phone out just as hard as I will the Muslim who thinks the USA owes him a living post 9/11.
I think it's also fair to say that Justinian was a bit like the people who put together the various US Restatements. Interesting collators, but not much more. He (or more particularly poor Tribonian, who had to keep taking himself off lest he be accused of something untoward) did some nice collating, and a great deal of over-simplification.
ReplyDeleteWell it’s a bit unfair to single out Justinian on this point. In Roman law, a Codex was a compilation of extant statute laws (leges), passed by previous emperors. But the entire Corpus Juris Civilis consisted of four parts:
1. Justinian’s Code (Codex Justinianus) : Unlike previous Codex, Justinian’s was the first to compile the entirety of Roman law, rather than just those laws made since the previous Codex. This involved a compilation of all the Roman emperor-made statute laws (constitutions), dating back to the Antonines in the early 2nd century. The three primary sources used by Tribonian and his very large team were:
(i) Gregorian Code (Codex Gregorianus) ordered by Diocletian compiled constitutions from the Antonines up the beginning of Diocletian’s rule.
(ii) Codex Hermogenianus: only covered those constitutions made during the Tetrarchy, as obviously rule by four from two separate imperial capitals was revolutionary.
(iii) Codex Theodosianus: compiling the constitutions of the Christian emperors.
2. Digests: These were not imperial statute laws (constitutions), but rather much more akin to your US Restatements. That is they were not proper laws (leges) in themselves, but very influential commentaries by highly respected jurists (ius), which nevertheless did have legal effect and authority. And your man Ulpian’s writings – as well as Paulus - made up nearly half of Justinian’s Digests.
Now, you say
anything written with clarity was produced before 235AD, particularly the work of Ulpian and Gaius (the latter, of course, survived independently).
I’m not sure what you mean by clarity here. Ulpian died 300 years before Justinian’s Corpus. Now, ANY language evolves immensely over a 300 year period. By then, the capital of the Roman empire had been in the Greek-speaking east – Constantinople – for 200 years. And even though the official language did not change from Latin to Greek until 610, by Justinian’s emperorship, Medieval Latin had already established itself as the empire’s lingua franca.
Medieval Latin had a much more Greek – both classical and Koine – inflection, due naturally to Byzantium’s location, but also the The Bible, which was not only written in Greek (Koine), but was also seeped in Greek philosophical concepts. The Latin Vulgate hence domesticated Latinised Greek thinking, vocab, and even grammar.
Always remember we have more of Ulpian than we have of any Church father, including Augustine. A tribute to Tribonian's good taste if nothing else.
Well Tribonian was not the trailblazer here. He was merely compiling what the Codex Theodosianus said. Tribonian’s great advance was resolving the mess Roman Law had fallen into by not having a systematic method to reconcile competing views among the great jurists.
Theodosius’ Law of Citations decreed a ‘ranking’ method to be applied in conflicts among Ulpianus, Gaius, Paulus, Papinianus. Even though Theodosius was trying to improve Constantine’s law that Papinianus was king, his convoluted method begged for simplification, which Tribonian achieved.
So, in fact, it was Theodosius who was the first emperor, not only to legislate that the great classical Roman jurists were to be given decisive respect in interpreting legislation, but also how judges were to resolve conflicts among them.
3. Institutiones: This was basically a law student’s textbook, which was overwhelmingly direct quotes from Gauis
4. Novels: These were constitutions subsequently passed by Justinian.
The law codes of Theodosius (comprising the work of Constantine) are written in the most terrible babu Latin and prove if nothing else that the Christians (a) did not get commerce (b) spent most of their time hating on the gays and the wimminz and (c) could not write.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry SL, but this is just ill-informed gibberish, which is beneath somebody of your education and innate intellect.
Dear Peter (and SL),
ReplyDeleteThere is no better example of 'the winners writing the history books' than the idea that classical culture is Anthenian only.
There is no worse misinterpretation of the Roman Republic than to assume that the twin consuls of Rome were not modelled on the most effective political system of the last few centuries - the twin kings of Sparta. (Though any idiot could have predicted that the stability of a balanced hereditary system would be disastrously undermined by the unstable competition of annual elections!)
There is also no greater over simplification in historical understanding than the suggestion that the US constitution was modeled on Athenian direct democracy when elements of the representative systems of the Swiss Cantons, or the political safeguards of the Serene Republic of Venice are clearly far more relevant. This is fantasy stuff from bad education by bad educationalists.
The Classical period - in any culture - is, as Lorenzo states, the period of centralised constitutional states with professional armies (before the breakdowns into warrior cultures that have been common to east, west and middle). It is about themes of government, not of poetry, philosophy, theology, or jurisprudence.
To pretend that the only culture ever to have a classical period was a single favoured Greek city state is to indulge in peurile ivory tower reductionism. (But then that is an accurate description of most modern academic teaching isn't it?)
Dear Nigel
ReplyDeleteThere is no better example of 'the winners writing the history books' than the idea that classical culture is Anthenian only.
Well given the classical Athenians were long by then, I can’t see them swriting much at all, let alone history books. However, my Roman sources defy me as support you. As I quoted above, the ROMAN poet, Horace, conceded:
Graecia capta ferum victorim cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio
Need we go through all the other Roman admissions?
There is no worse misinterpretation of the Roman Republic than to assume that the twin consuls of Rome were not modelled on the most effective political system of the last few centuries - the twin kings of Sparta.
On rankings of the most egregious misrepresentations of the Roman Republic, I am an innocent. However, I do not think what I said necessarily attempts to contradict your ranking. I was responding to the – quite right – claim for laws and jurists to be given a seat at the Classical table. This is why I mentioned the mid fifth century legal document - the Twelve Tables. The substitution of the twin Consulships for the Etruscan kings, occurred fifty years earlier (around 510 BC). The early Republican Constitution was not written down, which contributed to the patricians continued abuse and oppression of the plebeians.
On the inspiration for the twin-consulship I am again an innocent, but find your attribution to the Spartans – presumably The Great Rhetra - intriguing, but much more question-begging than I have time for at the minute.
The Conflict of the Orders was – temporarily – resolved only when the patricians acceded to plebeian demands that the Constitution be written. Note, I say "a Roman delegation travelled to Greece to learn from Greek laws and Constitutionalism". This is to acknowledge that it would have been unlikely they went all the way from Rome, only stopping at Athens. Having said that, all the extant material I am familiar with attributes the Twelve Tables to the Athenian Solon’s Law. If you have stuff, I’ve never seen, lay it on me brother, I’m always up for learning!
Putting aside the obvious quibbling that quite rightly attends the probity of any ancient evidence, at least some evidence suggesting the influence of the Spartan Great Rhetra over the Athenian Solon’s Constitution would help. One important point is that Solon’s Constitution was actually written down. The Spartans were not so big on all that sissy writin’, rithmetic, and stuff.
Though any idiot could have predicted that the stability of a balanced hereditary system would be disastrously undermined by the unstable competition of annual elections!
ReplyDeleteWell Nigel, you certainly knock about with a far higher class of idiot that I do! :) But the situation was far more nuanced and ironic than this. The real kicker was when the plebeians finally won the right to have one of the two Consulships reserved for one of their number – nearly 100 years after The Twelve Tables - by the Lex Licinia Sextia, 370 BC. The irony was yet to become obvious. But it was the Lex Hortensia 287 BC, which gave the Plebeian Council veto over not only the Tribal Assembly – to which all Romans belonged - but also the Senate and the Army (Century Assembly).
Where the irony kicks in is that even though Romans were classed for political purposes as plebeian or patrician by birth, an increasing number of plebs had long ago left their pleb roots, and were now rich, powerful, and married with the patrician class. This was a double-edged sword for the plebs:
1. It meant they could stop the rich and powerful patricians crapping all over them.
2. BUT, there was a growing fifth column among their number whose economic and political interests were more aligned with the patricians, and the senatorial aristocracy.
These fifth columnists used their membership of the plebs to exert their influence in pro-patricians ways.
Voila! The assassination of the Gracchi, which is right up there with my major interest in Roman history, period.
On your US Constitution point: Well I am no historian of the US, but I was always under the impression that not one person on this earth attributed it to the Athenians, but rather the Roman Republican Constitution. However, the American Founders were influenced by a Greek historian in this choice; Polybius.
The Classical period - in any culture - is, as Lorenzo states, the period of centralised constitutional states with professional armies (before the breakdowns into warrior cultures that have been common to east, west and middle). It is about themes of government, not of poetry, philosophy, theology, or jurisprudence.
Well, first I will give my view on your claim; poppycock. Now I will give you Lorenzo:
The classical period of a civilisation is the period when it has its first flowering of art, literature, culture and thought; establishing forms of the same that become recurring patterns in that society or civilisation.
To pretend that the only culture ever to have a classical period was a single favoured Greek city state is to indulge in peurile ivory tower reductionism. (But then that is an accurate description of most modern academic teaching isn't it?
Actually, I was indulging more in a bit of good-humored bloggish blowing-off, with somebody – Lorenzo – is well acquainted with my shtick. I would have thought my admission "I’m pretty hard core". Somehow Nigel I get the impression you are equally prone to such blowing-off, and I look forward to your riposte! :)
Dear Peter,
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I enjoy a good humoured blowing off too. (And I agree with many of your points, which just makes it more fun to pick on the suspicious ones.)
The most cutting of your repostes was that I hang around with a higher class of idiot than you do. Touche for democracy. No I was actually referring to the ivory tower political theorists who prose on this, because some of what you said had struck me as straight out of some of the more simplistic textbooks I have read.
In fact the' Athenian is classical' arguments I have seen are almost exclusively American, and come from the type of world history viewpoints that genuinely believe the US constitution is 'pure classical' stuff from Roman/Athenian roots. (So to some extent I was testing to see if your viewpoint is merely American?)
I still hold that any culture is a political construct. I agree that almost all cultures have flowering of art, literature etc, but that is not what defines them. Many cultures have had flashes of art, literature, etc without developing the common themes that are clearly classical. Equally the fact that both Western Europe and Japan simultaneously developed feudal cultures that somehow included parallel inventions of chivalry, heraldry, romantic love, novels, etc, without any cross referencing does not stop them from both being feudal cultures. The political forms of the classical states or the feudal states or the ancient empires are the themes.
As Carlyle said, "I am conveying the grand sweep of history, not registering it's upholstery'.
As a matter of interest my version of classical European cultures would probably include Phoenecian offshoots like Carthage, because the Mediterranean experiments with trade and mass literacy and new forms of law and rulership and citizenship are what is essential to our fascination with the 'classical' world. That is what makes them different from other cultures. But this doesn't stop me from thinking that other areas of the world had similar 'classical' experiences in relation to prior or post aspects of their cultural development.
Almost all cultures go through some variation of a primitive, classical, warrior rule, opening out/engaging, modern phase. (Though you could argue large parts of Africa are still primitive and large parts of the Muslim world are still feudal for instance.) There is no more sense in pretending that the only 'real' Classical culture was a single city state in Greece, than there is in pretending that the only 'real' Industrialisation happened in Britain.