[Andrew Frisardi]

Andrew, with all due respect, I took up your suggestion to read Mike's review and I don't find it's junk at all. It seems pretty well argued to me. It's an opinion piece, as all reviews are, but he gives plenty of quotes to back up his points.

As for whether the Dark Ages really were all dark up to Dante's time, I'll just say: John Scotus Eriugena, Bede, Alcuin, the School of Chartres. Romanesque architecture and Gregorian chant. St. Benedict and Bernard of Clairvaux. Did Christians do lots of naughty things? Of course. Name me a large group of people that hasn't.

[Andrew Szilvasy]

Those interested in the diversity of thought in the late Antique West up through and beyond Dante should listen to "The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps," a podcast done by Peter Adamson which is, to my mind and ear, fair minded and always looking to complicate what we have passively accepted as history and to reconsider what counts as "philosophy." Dante, Chaucer, the Romance of the Rose, and other works of literature have already appeared, and Adamson is a scholar of Classical and Arabic Philosophy--by way of his initial love of Medieval literature.

[Kevin Greene]

Again, my ignorance on display.

I was taught that the so-called Dark Ages were dark only because we know so little about them.

[Michael Juster]

So, first of all, I all but finished this review around December 1--as other reviews were just starting to be published. Several of the early reviews were actually favorable to Nixey's book, although as time has passed the trend was strongly in the other direction. I sent my draft to scholars in the field for comments, who took about a month to respond (I am sure everyone here is sympathetic to end-of-term time pressures), and then I made some edits, and then, as I expected based on the CRB schedule, the review waited in their queue for about six weeks.

The fact that prominent academics have come to opinions substantially similar to mine is a good thing, not a bad thing, to my mind. Having said that, my more specific points about Nixey's ignorance of monastic life, Late Antique poetry, and Rome's destruction of its own literary heritage through damnatio memoriae are, to the best of my recollection, largely my idiosyncratic examples of broader criticisms shared with other reviewers who focused on other specific failures of the book.

Nixey does, in fact, deny the persecutions of Diocletian, considered by most Late Antique historians to be the most brutal of the Roman persecutions. She does so in just one paragraph in reliance on one unexplained footnote to a 1965 secondary source. As Timothy O'Neill of "History for Atheists" has pointed out, that citation provides absolutely no support for her proposition.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Andrew, I highly value your opinions and you as a friend. I am disappointed that we see this so differently. This is not a review about whether the dark ages were dark. It is something else altogether. Just like the Lowell review was not a fair review of the work but rather a defense a particular morality's investment in a untenable view of mental illness and its interplay with freedom. Our country is presently diving deeper into the sea of pillaging greed empowered by a type of Christian lionization not far removed from the type Nixey is underlining in her book. Having read her opening arguments, she is honest about her slant and purpose and her tone doesn't fit what you would expect from the review in question. Could she be adding to some misconceptions about the worth of work from those times and is it worth arguing over? Of course. Not my area of knowledge or, to be fair, deep interest like it is of yours. I am invested in the history of Christianity's war on animism however so the book is in my backyard for other reasons and I will see it through as soon as I can. But I don't need to read the book to see how the review is working rhetorically. And Juster has a style of misread/hyperbole/publish in ghetti/feign martyrdom that I began to notice with his bit on Bok.

Regardless of my own strong distaste for his methods and certainties it is vital that citizens of my country become aware of what the world-rejecting ideology in Christianity actually does when empowered. The review is a horse blinder. I stand by my post. This is using what interests you and others to do something else.

[Michael Juster]

Res ipsa loquitur: https://historyforatheists.com/2017/...darkening-age/

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

I can't type in the sections of the Nixey book that I want. I have a paper past due so I will . But here are two snips easy to paste in:


Christianity as the inheritor and valiant protector of the classical tradition – and it is an image that persists. This is the Christianity of ancient monastic libraries, of the beauty of illuminated manuscripts, of the Venerable Bede. It is the Christianity that built august Oxford colleges, their names a litany of learnedness – Corpus Christi, Jesus, Magdalen. This is the Christianity that stocked medieval libraries, created the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, the Hours of Jeanne de Navarre and the sumptuous gold illustrations of the Copenhagen Psalter. This is the religion that, inside the walls of the Vatican, even now keeps Latin going as a living language, translating such words as ‘computer’, ‘video game’ and ‘heavy metal’ into Latin, over a millennium after the language ought to have died a natural death.
And indeed all that is true. Christianity at its best did do all of that, and more. But there is another side to this Christian story, one that is worlds away from the bookish monks and careful copyists of legend.

This is a book about the Christian destruction of the classical world. The Christian assault was not the only one – fire, flood, invasion and time itself all played their part – but this book focuses on Christianity’s assault in particular. This is not to say that the Church didn’t also preserve things: it did. But the story of Christianity’s good works in this period has been told again and again; such books proliferate in libraries and bookshops. The history and the sufferings of those whom Christianity defeated have not been. This book concentrates on them.

[Richard Meyer]

Originally Posted by Michael Juster

If you want to see how actual scholars in the field are responding to the review instead of wallowing in the usual ad hominem comments from the usual suspects, you are welcome to go to my Twitter site: @amjuster.

I don’t know Mr. Juster, and I’ve never commented on any of his writings other than my remarks in this thread about his review of Nixey’s The Darkening Age. Although I’m familiar with his name from the Sphere, I don’t recall ever having read anything by Mr. Juster prior to his critique of this particular book.

My contribution to this discussion (Post #6) was the first to raise questions about Mr. Juster’s review. In follow-up remarks (Post #10), I present additional observations and opinions. My primary objection to the book review is summarized in these lines from my second post:

Juster’s review says as much about his personal beliefs and ideology
as it does about the book in question. The book may be bad, but the review
is shallow and painfully exculpatory.

In taking issue with Mr. Juster’s tone and tenor regarding the amount of harm caused by early Christianity, I quote from his essay, present a differing view, and supply supporting details and examples.

I see nothing in my comments that can be described as an ad hominem attack. In fact, aside from some strong language in posts by Andrew M., the contributors to this discussion have been civil and reasonable in their observations.

Richard

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Hey Richard.
Sorry I had missed your original post due to phone reading. Obviously, I agree. I put my language strong to match the way that Juster deals with other authors in his work. I think he often takes cheap shots and shouldn't object to his own medicine. Sorry if your reasoned words got caught up in my excesses.

I agree that the book may have problems. If she downplays violence from any State or Ideology to make a point, that weakens the work. So far it doesn't read that way to me but like I said I had to jump back onto a paper here and will give it a real whirl later. I write loudly because the Lowell review really pissed me off and, IMO, showed a mean spirit. Enough from me. I may come back if I can get to the book anytime soon. But I will follow along and keep up with the thread quietly.

[John Riley]

When I encounter a sentence such as this one

These vapid sentences are not an outlier; Nixey constantly spews grandiose falsehoods without even trying to bolster her morality tale with facts.

it is difficult for me to continue reading. When a reviewer is apparently unable to control him or herself and is driven to such a level of derogatory writing, I suspect the work being written about cuts against the reviewer's ideas or beliefs to such an extent a fair review is impossible. It's more of a mugging cheered on by like-minded people than a review, and I stop there, even if I am like-minded myself.