Discussion Question

      A prominent medieval historian recently wrote that he was "Throwing aside the Dark Ages."⁽¹⁾ He abandoned study of the Middle Ages because he found that time-period intellectually arid, and traded it for a career studying modern history. Should we equate Middle Ages with Dark Ages? How can we answer this question? GO TO THE SOURCES.... (Also think about these clues)

     For instance, consider the following argument: In the Romance of Tristan and Iseult, Beroul presents us with a picture of the "Dark Ages." All forms of rational government, fair justice, intellectual activity, recognizable society or true culture has disappeared. Life is directed by unquestioned obedience to superstitions and traditions which suffocate human individualism and thought. Tristan, Iseult, Mark and the others are puppets on a stage. Their strings are pulled by a destiny they need not accept, yet they do accept it without struggle or question. Their stage or world is made for them; they neither fashion it nor improve it. The author Beroul pictures life as brutally simple with no hope for progress or change held out to the reader, no sophistication in thought, only black or white, yes or no. Beroul's presentation of culture, and the influence from his book, allow no real Life, Learning and Love. As thinking human beings, (homo sapiens!) we can only be glad that history has brought us to our enlightened age -- rational and free.

     On the other hand, Prof. Patrick Geary argues, "Medieval scholarship is part of the intellectual history of the 20th century." (Chronicle of Higher Education, Research and Publishing (Oct 30, 1998), 3. For more on this side of the debate, see Survey of Medieval Architecture. Furthermore, to quote the ORB: "A much discussed theory in recent years, put forward by Colin Morris in The Discovery of the Individual, is that the 'modern' idea of the individual emerged in the twelfth century."

     How do you reconcile these opposed interpretations? Take each sentence of the above apart. Think each through. Read further. Then isolate specific pieces of evidence from Beroul (e.g., events, ideas, situations, descriptions, dialogue, assumptions, meanings etc.) that support your conclusion. How does each example support it? Do you see any evidence on the other side? How do you reconcile it? Do you think Beroul could be cited as evidence to support "high culture and important influence" in the Middle Ages? Or is Beroul's work what scholars had in mind when they placed the "Middle" Ages below the far higher peaks of civilized life in Classical and Renaissance times?

     This discussion could well open us up to the rational, and irrational, sides of our own world. Modern education has its (superstitious?) dictates and assumptions, its careful methodology and practical goals: Better now? Why/why not?

     This discussion turns on some important (sub)themes of civilized culture, or the lack of it: What are the traits of the chivalric hero? How is the status of women presented in Beroul? E.g., how does Iseult compare with both King Mark and Tristan in terms of intelligence, culture, ability, active power in society? What are the relationships between and among chivalry, Christianity, the crusades, rationality, the Church, government, individualism, feudalism, royal power, aristocracy, freedom, love, social freedoms/restrictions, choices and limitations (and any other significant theme that you would care to add)?

___________

1. Emmanuel Sivan, Radical Islam (N.Y.: Yale University Pres, 1990), ix.