The Middle Ages
Yup, it was back to university today for the start of the second semester. The sparse timetable of a part-time student meant I only had one lecture, Scottish Lit, and that was little more than an introduction to module two - medieval Scottish literature. I'm not really sure why they bother with such things since these types of lecture always run short and the notes have been up on the course website for the past week anyway.
As expected, the content that was there mainly involved pointing out the bloody obvious, like when the Middle Ages started and ended. The start is commonly attributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, specifically the sacking of Rome itself in 476 when Romulus Augustus was deposed - a convenient historical bookmark. Logically, this has in turn led many to see the collapse of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of the Ottomans in 1453 as the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.
However, things are rarely this easy. As the lecturer was so keen on repeating for the benefit of those slow to catch on, history is in perpetual motion. It can never be definitively paused to any greater extent than to try and give those intimidated by the magnitude of its open-ends a chance to catch their breath. In the words of Umberto Eco, "This framework of Order provides an unlimited chain of relations between creatures and events". The 'end' of the Middle Ages is especially vague. Some want to use Christopher Columbus' 1492 voyage as the conclusive mark, others point to the Tudor dynasty's establishment in England by 1485. Some even point to the works of Italian scholar Petrarch in the 14th century as Renaissance material. The words 'pointless nitpicking' come to mind.
Of course, even the term 'Middle Ages' is rather peculiar. As Morris Bishop pointed out, "They did not know that they were living in the middle; they thought, quite rightly, that they were the time's latest achievement". The term is thought to have been coined by Renaissance humanists in order to bolster the purported uniqueness of their self-modernity. It has stuck, for the moment, and the period is regarded rather fondly by the likes of the Romantics as they sought respite from the industrialised world.
History is a different course, though. In terms of literature, most of this background material will probably be focused on the downfall of the intensive manuscript-based literature world as it faded towards a printing press culture. This will lead to the tutors regurgitating the points of module one, bashing us over the head with the self-evident notion of themes remaining similar under different settings (specifically regarding comparisons of authors and readers in medieval and modern cultures). Transitions are rarely smooth. Usually they are made coarse by resistance and favoured tendencies.
You know, like preferring to go to a lecture that can actually teach me something new.
As expected, the content that was there mainly involved pointing out the bloody obvious, like when the Middle Ages started and ended. The start is commonly attributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, specifically the sacking of Rome itself in 476 when Romulus Augustus was deposed - a convenient historical bookmark. Logically, this has in turn led many to see the collapse of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of the Ottomans in 1453 as the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.
However, things are rarely this easy. As the lecturer was so keen on repeating for the benefit of those slow to catch on, history is in perpetual motion. It can never be definitively paused to any greater extent than to try and give those intimidated by the magnitude of its open-ends a chance to catch their breath. In the words of Umberto Eco, "This framework of Order provides an unlimited chain of relations between creatures and events". The 'end' of the Middle Ages is especially vague. Some want to use Christopher Columbus' 1492 voyage as the conclusive mark, others point to the Tudor dynasty's establishment in England by 1485. Some even point to the works of Italian scholar Petrarch in the 14th century as Renaissance material. The words 'pointless nitpicking' come to mind.
Of course, even the term 'Middle Ages' is rather peculiar. As Morris Bishop pointed out, "They did not know that they were living in the middle; they thought, quite rightly, that they were the time's latest achievement". The term is thought to have been coined by Renaissance humanists in order to bolster the purported uniqueness of their self-modernity. It has stuck, for the moment, and the period is regarded rather fondly by the likes of the Romantics as they sought respite from the industrialised world.
History is a different course, though. In terms of literature, most of this background material will probably be focused on the downfall of the intensive manuscript-based literature world as it faded towards a printing press culture. This will lead to the tutors regurgitating the points of module one, bashing us over the head with the self-evident notion of themes remaining similar under different settings (specifically regarding comparisons of authors and readers in medieval and modern cultures). Transitions are rarely smooth. Usually they are made coarse by resistance and favoured tendencies.
You know, like preferring to go to a lecture that can actually teach me something new.
posted by Thed at 18:48
0 comments
