Rating: 
Summary: A compelling point-of-view on the early Christian church
Review: Although Freeman's discussions can feel a little circular (haven't we been here before?), they do provide an interesting point of view on the church-state relationship of the first five centuries of the common era. I am a passionate student of American history and found this book to be a tremendous resource in developing a new appreciation for the birth and development of the Age of Enlightenment.Freeman's work has made me want to study more ancient history and philosophy as a result. It's also made me something of the scourge of my adult education class at church - thanks, Mr. Freeman! (LOL)
Rating: 
Summary: IF YOU WANT TO SEE WITH OPEN EYES
Review: Charles Freeman begins the book with a rigorous outline of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and science. While not utopias by any stretch of the imaginiation, the Classical and Hellenistic worlds were eras of human progress in the fields of thought and science. Mr. Freeman describes the tensions between the various schools of Classical thought, especially those between Aristotelian empiricism and rationalism with Platonic transcendent idealism. He sets these schools of thought within the pluralistic and relatively openminded context of the late Hellenistic era. I appreciate how the author does not idealize those philosophers and thinkers he obviously admires. He is not afraid to elucidate the reader to the flaws of Aristotle and the Classical and Hellenistic Greeks in general. This gives him even more credibility as he critically examines how the rationalism and relative openness of the Classical Mediterranean world gave way to the autocratic and intolerant emperor state of the late Roman world. Constantine, as well the emperors that followed him, pilfered what he needed from early Christianity (which was an extremely pluralistic conglomeration of diverse ideological systems in itself - this fact being extremely threatening to the current Catholic church with a capital C.) and repressed what he percieved threatening to his rule. This resulted in an unified and centralized "catholic" church that set about, with the authority of both church and the state, to violently abolishing its competitors. Mr. Freeman's great contribution to this story is the distillation of so many historical details. His scholarship is first-rate. His ideas aren't new to scholarship but he does integrate contemporary scholarship well into a unified and readable story. I further appreciate the fact that he often encourages the reader to take nothing as scripture and analyze everything with a critical eye. While there are many who don't want to know this much about the early history of the Christianity and the preexisting world it eclipsed, there are those of us who are excited at the possibility of perhaps continuing what the Greeks started. For us, this book is an invaluable connection to that past.
Rating:
Summary: Time very well spent
Review: Charles Freeman has taken an thousand years of ecclesiastical history and formulated a well thought out theory on the impacts of the church on Roman society. For the truly devout, this book may tend to bring to light facts that don't necessarily warm the heart. However, he does relay a strong sense of the times and places all events into their proper context. Freeman has obviously spent painstaking hours in the research and formulation of this book, and in doing so, provides the reader with a vibrant understanding of both the glory and instability of Rome. The Empire itself is shown with all its vulnerabilities, which after "Christianization", seem to waver on the strengths and weaknesses of a developing Christian church. For the unbiased reader, this book is a refreshing insight into an area of Roman history that is commonly overlooked and blindingly waived aside. I recommend this book to any that are interested not only in ancient / medieval history, but in the aspects of ecclesiastical history that seldom are expressed without a slanted sentiment.
Rating:
Summary: A scholarly analysis of the transition to the dark ages
Review: Charles Freeman succeeds in communicating in great detail the history and varying ideas of Christianity as it was transitioning from one of many religions in the Roman Empire to the official religion. The book concludes, as the title implies with the "Fall of Reason," that is, with the closing by the now Christian authorities of all the pagan schools of philosophy. Freeman identifies the cause of this intolerance with the involvement of the state in church. As a result of the Emperors wishing to grant Christianity a priviliged status in the empire, heretics had to be exposed and excluded from the priviliges. The differing interpretations of Christianity ultimately derived from relying on opposing philosophical bases for the interpretation of fundamental Christian truths, such as the nature of the trinity and the status of the material world. Ultimately, by the time of St. Augustine, the choice was made to rely on what amounts to a Platonic (strictly, neo-platonic) philosophy as the intellectual base of the religion. Further debate was viewed as not only unnecessary but dangerous so all the schools were shut down. The book is quite technical at times, in terms of the detail in which it examines the theological ideas of the time. Prospective readers should be prepared for some challenging readings.
Rating: 
Summary: The Book even fails to show correlation let alone causation
Review: Freeman's book is definitely fascinating and worth reading, but I wouldn't put it at the top of the list of books to read regarding its title premise - that the rise of faith caused the fall of reason. The book is rather awkwardly structured - I kept wondering when it was finally going to stop singing the praises of the Greek philosophers and get around to its main subject. On the other hand, the historical review of the Greek academic tradition was rather fascinating and an enjoyable read. My growing impression as I read the book was that Freeman definitely has his heroes, mostly Greek philosophers + Thomas Aquinas. His book seems to be in some way a tribute and eulogy to the great Greek thinkers at the expense (unfairly, in my opinion) of pretty much everyone else. Christianity is therefore negative, a priori, by virtue of the fact that the Church was not the Academy. This bias is evident in Freeman's analysis of, for instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, which actually had a much stronger position early on than Freeman allows. A brief review of the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers will demonstrate this pretty quickly. All in all, again, I'd say it's worth reading, but keep in mind that the author was probably biased before he started writing. In his defence, I think he does a rather good job at subduing his bias - though it is still there.
Rating:
Summary: The Book even fails to show correlation let alone causation
Review: Greek philosophy was on a very deep descent prior to the rise of the Church. Clearly by the birth of Christ Greek philosphy was almost over. Plato was the highpoint and from there there was descent. Freeman just assumes Aristotelian philsosphy was an advance over Platonic philisophy. Aristotlelian philosophy had to be discarded by Galileo and Newton for science to advance. The idea which apparently Aquinas fell for is that just sensing stuff is the way science advances is clearly Aristoteleian and much more effectively closed the 'Western Mind,' than Platonism. The modern world is much more Platonic than Aristotelian with conservation laws etc. Hard science depends on experiment and neither Aristotle nor Plato promoted experiment. Basically the book blames the Church for what happened prior to the birth of the Church, is seemingly incapable of addressing the the various merits of ancient philsophies and blames Christianity for the actions of emperors who were only nominally Christian by the count of Freeman. Basically the book is a poor brief for modern day materialism and that sums up the book.
Rating:
Summary: Twisted History
Review: I am grateful for the care with which Amazon readers have reviewed my book whether they have agreed with my argument or not. The reviews are worth a reply.
My thesis is that Christianity was heavily politicised by the late Roman empire, certainly to the extent that it would have been unrecognisable to Jesus. Note the linking of the church to the empire's success in war, opulent church building and an ever narrowing definition of what beliefs one had to hold to be saved. (Hand in hand with this went an elaboration of the horrors of hell, a radical and unhappy development which can only have discouraged freedom of thought.) My core argument is that one result of the combination of the forces of authority (the empire) and faith (the church) was a stifling of a sophisticated tradition of intellectual thought which had stretched back over nearly a thousand years and which relied strongly on the use of the reasoning mind.
I did not depend on Gibbon. I do not agree with him that intellectual thought in the early Christian centuries was dead and I believe that the well established hierarchy of the church strengthened not undermined the empire. After all it was the church which survived the collapse of the western empire. Of course, Gibbon writes so eloquently that I could not resist quoting from him at times but my argument is developed independently of him and draws on both primary sources and recent scholarship.
On the relationship between Christianity and philosophy I argue that there were two major strands of Greek philosophy , those of Plato and Aristotle. The early church did not reject Greek philosophy but drew heavily on Platonism to the exclusion of Aristotle. In the thirteenth century Christianity was reinvigorated by the adoption of Aristotelianism , notably by Thomas Aquinas. It seems clear that Christianity needed injections of pagan philosophy to maintain its vitality and a new era in Christian intellectual life was now possible. I don't explore it in this book. Even so, when one compares the rich and broad intellectual achievements of the `pagan' Greek centuries with those of the Middle Ages, it is hard to make a comparison in favour of the latter. Where are the great names? (The critic who mentioned the ninth century philosopher Erigena should also have mentioned that he was condemned as a heretic.)
When one reads the great works of second and third century AD thinkers such as Plutarch, Galen, Ptolemy and Plotinus, which are remarkable for their range and depth, one cannot but feel that much has been lost in the west by the fifth century. Something dramatic happened in the fourth century. In 313 Constantine brought the traditional policy of Roman toleration for different religious beliefs to its culmination by offering Christians (who had condemned the pagan gods as demons) a privileged place within the empire alongside other religions. By 381 the Christian emperor Theodosius when enforcing the Nicene creed condemns other Christians as `foolish madmen.. We decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics . . .they will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority , in accordance with the will of heaven, shall decided to inflict'.If this is not a `closing of the western mind' it is difficult to know what is. It goes hand in hand with a mass of texts which condemn rational thought and the violent suppression of Jewish and pagan sacred places. There is no precedent for such a powerful imposition of a religious ideology in the Greco-Roman world. The evidence of suppression is so overwhelming that the onus must be on those who argue otherwise to refute it.
Some readers have related my book to the present day- I leave it to them to do so if they wish -it is important to understand ANY age in which perspectives seem to narrow and religion and politics become intertwined as they certainly did in the fourth century. After all American Christianity was founded by those attempting to escape just such political straitjackets. Christianity has never been monolithic or static. In fact,as my book makes clear, one of my heroes is Gregory the Great who, I believe, brought back spirituality, moderation and compassion into the Christian tradition after the extremes of the fourth century. It is the sheer variety of Christianities which make the religion such an absorbing area of study.
I hope Amazon readers will continue to engage with my arguments whether they agree with them or not. Keep the western mind open and good reading! Charles Freeman.
N.B. Amazon insist I award my book some stars! I have chosen ''four' because since I wrote it I have come across a lot of new material which I think could improve its argument further.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, there was a Closing.
Review: I am grateful for the care with which Amazon readers have reviewed my book whether they have agreed with my argument or not. The reviews are worth a reply.
My thesis is that Christianity was heavily politicised by the late Roman empire, certainly to the extent that it would have been unrecognisable to Jesus. Note the linking of the church to the empire's success in war, opulent church building and an ever narrowing definition of what beliefs one had to hold to be saved. (Hand in hand with this went an elaboration of the horrors of hell, a radical and unhappy development which can only have discouraged freedom of thought.) My core argument is that one result of the combination of the forces of authority (the empire) and faith (the church) was a stifling of a sophisticated tradition of intellectual thought which had stretched back over nearly a thousand years and which relied strongly on the use of the reasoning mind.
I did not depend on Gibbon. I do not agree with him that intellectual thought in the early Christian centuries was dead and I believe that the well established hierarchy of the church strengthened not undermined the empire. After all it was the church which survived the collapse of the western empire. Of course, Gibbon writes so eloquently that I could not resist quoting from him at times but my argument is developed independently of him and draws on both primary sources and recent scholarship.
On the relationship between Christianity and philosophy I argue that there were two major strands of Greek philosophy , those of Plato and Aristotle. The early church did not reject Greek philosophy but drew heavily on Platonism to the exclusion of Aristotle. In the thirteenth century Christianity was reinvigorated by the adoption of Aristotelianism , notably by Thomas Aquinas. It seems clear that Christianity needed injections of pagan philosophy to maintain its vitality and a new era in Christian intellectual life was now possible. I don't explore it in this book. Even so, when one compares the rich and broad intellectual achievements of the 'pagan' Greek centuries with those of the Middle Ages, it is hard to make a comparison in favour of the latter. Where are the great names? (The critic who mentioned the ninth century philosopher Erigena should also have mentioned that he was condemned as a heretic.)
When one reads the great works of second and third century AD thinkers such as Plutarch, Galen, Ptolemy and Plotinus, which are remarkable for their range and depth, one cannot but feel that much has been lost in the west by the fifth century. Something dramatic happened in the fourth century. In 313 Constantine brought the traditional policy of Roman toleration for different religious beliefs to its culmination by offering Christians (who had condemned the pagan gods as demons) a privileged place within the empire alongside other religions. By 381 the Christian emperor Theodosius when enforcing the Nicene creed condemns other Christians as 'foolish madmen.. We decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics . . .they will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority , in accordance with the will of heaven, shall decided to inflict'.If this is not a 'closing of the western mind' it is difficult to know what is. It goes hand in hand with a mass of texts which condemn rational thought and the violent suppression of Jewish and pagan sacred places. There is no precedent for such a powerful imposition of a religious ideology in the Greco-Roman world. The evidence of suppression is so overwhelming that the onus must be on those who argue otherwise to refute it.
Some readers have related my book to the present day- I leave it to them to do so if they wish -it is important to understand ANY age in which perspectives seem to narrow and religion and politics become intertwined as they certainly did in the fourth century. After all American Christianity was founded by those attempting to escape just such political straitjackets. Christianity has never been monolithic or static. In fact,as my book makes clear, one of my heroes is Gregory the Great who, I believe, brought back spirituality, moderation and compassion into the Christian tradition after the extremes of the fourth century. It is the sheer variety of Christianities which make the religion such an absorbing area of study.
I hope Amazon readers will continue to engage with my arguments whether they agree with them or not. Keep the western mind open and good reading! Charles Freeman.
N.B. Amazon insist I award my book some stars! I have chosen ''four' because since I wrote it I have come across a lot of new material which I think could improve its argument further.
Rating: 
Summary: One more thought
Review: I have not completed this book, so I accept the reviews of those who say it is reasonably well researched and presented. Perhaps it does treat of this subject - but there has been no mention of it: it was the church, in the form of the Christian Irish monasteries, that brought/restored "civilization" to the European world of tribal life. It was the church, in those same monasteries, that preserved as much as possible of learning and which educated the sons of the leadership classes of Europe during the dark ages. It was the church there in Ireland, which preserved the basics of literature, theology AND philosophy and brought it back to the continent, where it then bloomed and blossomed into the Aquinas-Bonaventure-Scotus, etc. realm, which developed into Renaissance humanism. In addition, I reiterate the statement of, I think, Publishers Weekly, that Paul himself is a fine example of Greek intellectual thought. Paul is the first "reasoner" about Christianity - whether you agree with his conclusions or not is not the point. He had and used all the tools of the Greek intellectual world. The basic argument of this book appears to be prejudiced from the start.
Rating:
Summary: Not just rehashed Gibbon
Review: I must disagree with the other reviewer in comparing this book to Gibbon. Rather than asserting that Christianity contributed to the end of the Roman empire, Freeman suggests that Christianity may in fact have preserved it well beyond its sell-by date. It is beyond any reasonable historical doubt that the average citizen of medieval Europe was far more restricted in what their society would allow them to believe and indeed to think about - with the penalties for error being corporal on earth and eternal in the fires of hell. It is certainly true that from a technological point of view, invention did continue throughout the middle ages, but free intellectual & scientific progress was certainly stunted by the church's insistence on reliance on scripture as the only valid source of knowledge, supported by an atrophied smattering of classical texts. Ironically of course the church integrated the very same old masters (esp Ptolemy, Galen and Aristotle) that would have espoused a practical and experimentalist scientific tradition completely at odds with the church's view of reality. Freeman, while clearly an admirer of the classical world (most of his other books have that focus), is far from a church-basher, though once you've read the book you mightn't feel like being so kind. Gregory of Tours and Ambrose of Milan, two pivotal figures of the early medieval church, receive treatments that are fairly balanced (though it is clear that any admiration Freeman has for Ambrose are along the same lines as Machiavelli might have had for Stalin). A really excellent book, especially if want a thorough, thought-provoking, erudite but not overly academic treastise on the late Roman/Early medieval period.
|
