Pope's first six months reveal a 'rich, complex' personality

I composed this a couple of days ago, forgot to send it;

The plague wouldn’t hit Europe for another 550 years.

Not exactly...for "Europe" can include portions of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Though a PDF (thus clumsy to access) this map; http://www.justiniansflea.com/files/Jfleamap4.pdf shows plague to have reached Rome and beyond in the mid to latter portions of the 6th century.

Now there does appear (for lack of much historical note) to have been a pause after about 750 AD or so, before the much more extensively recorded outbreaks of 1348 and onwards, so that may leave you to be about half-right, in that there was apparently something of a pause between the first wave (Justinian's) and second wave of the worst outbreaks, thus there not being outbreak of plague during the time period of Bald's gift of a chair to a Latin Church bishop.

Half right...is still about half wrong, in regards to how the statement "The plague wouldn’t hit Europe for another 550 years. was used in context.

Q & A + Errata, William Rosen, author of Justinian's Flea

“Not exactly...for “Europe” can include portions of the Eastern Mediterranean.”

“can” in this case does not mean it did. Charles the Bald was in France. The Eastern Med is at the very end of Europe in the opposite direction.

My point still stands.

I was sure you would reach for a technicality, but you took the bait which I was forced to include.

I had to leave it like it was...for the phrase needing correcting was "The plague wouldn’t hit Europe for another 550 years."

It was predictable that you would reach for a re-drawing of the map to include only those parts of "Europe" which suited you. Which is why I included a link to a map in the first place.

Justinian's plague hit Southern Europe also, along with making it as far as the British Isles shortly later. The map I provided link to a pdf file for, shows reported incidences in France, along with Italy.

That is why I previously included that link. As far as I know, it is the only visual representation of the geographical extent which plague reached, related to or beginning near to the time of Justinian. If that map had been exportable, and able to be brought here and displayed, I would have done so for greater clarity's sake. As it is, I'm under the impression the map itself, as to the parameters or extent of reach of that time's successive waves of "plague", was derived from what reports of known plague outbreaks in Europe are included in the man's book (Justinian's Flea) which includes plague stretching into and significantly effecting Italy, France, and the British Isles.

Yet you say your point "still stands" forcing me to further spell things out as to how both technically and otherwise factually it does not.

So no, your "point" only semi-stands at best (dependent upon some sort of "plague" inter-tidal period) as it did when you first made it. In fact...it rather fails, standing lonely, only between the Justinian outbreaks (which went on for about 200 years) and the later, more well documented re-occurrences in the 14th century, which violates the operative but unstated "until" of the explicitly stated "550 years later".

It's like standing on the beach, and for reason one is momentarily dry, saying "the wave has not hit yet" when in fact previous waves have indeed washed over that very standing place which you seem to be suggested had remained dry until only some later time (14th century)...while claiming your "point" still stands (and is dry). Woopsie, but don't look now (in other words please do) or you may see that your "point" just got wet. HahaHA... how's that medicine taste? is it "good"?

More from Justinian's Flea, where in relation to that which was written about (and better documented) concerning outbreaks in the Eastern Med., and what is now Turkey, with the plague better documented for those areas, than the more primitive, less civilized areas of what is now France;

“Since soon no coffins or biers were left, six and even more persons were buried together in the same grave. One Sunday, three hundred corpses were counted in Saint Peter’s basilica [in Clermont] alone.”

More from the (in my previous reply linked to) Q & A which ventures into possible reasons for the Justinian plague outbreaks not being well documented in comparison to those beginning in the 14th century;

Why is the plague of Justinian so little known, compared to the Black Death of the 14th century?

The whole era is actually pretty vague to contemporary people, even educated ones. In addition to the general level of obscurity that the period enjoys, it was also a time that marked a sort of historical firebreak; so much of what we know about the Black Death has survived to the present day, I think, because it was, perversely, less disruptive than the Plague of Justinian…or, more accurately, it had a lot more continuity with the period that succeeded it.

These plagues – both of them – didn’t just happen once; each recurred for more than two hundred years…and two hundred years after the Black Death, the nations of Europe were hip deep into the Renaissance, while two hundred years after the Justinianic Plague, the nations of Europe were barely being born.

Can you see now? Plague, from the same pest, entered Europe, even that portion which you wished to focus narrowly upon, long before you said that it [first, in a sense] did, rendering the statement which I corrected for, more than a bit wobbly.

Can does not mean did? On technical aspect alone, being as "Europe" did include consideration for what is now Turkey, and once commonly did in description, up until WW I or so (or there would have not been the famously repeated misquote; "Turkey is the sick man of Europe") the "can include" was as to the word Europe, itself. That was the word used. So on that point alone, technicality as it is, your point fails. That the plague DID reach France, too, the very portion which you just mentioned as the location which mattered, makes it doubly certain that the statement which you are still trying to defend --- is beset with problems of "standing" as factual. So no, your point does not stand, but teeters at best.

Which results in your statement being half-wrong at best, for reason of having not been as well substantiated by actual history as you have now [again] attempted to portray to be so, by trying to project a limited a mental "map" of Europe", which still provides no remedy or "standing", save for some 'dry' centuries between waves...

I find a great much which yourself and others so certain about, upon closer examination to be not quite as Romanist are wont to portray facts and history to be, with the one- sided, lopsided lecturing beset with special pleadings and conditional consideration extended favorably to Romanist arguments alone -- but never the same scales used for "weighing" claims of Rome and the Romanist fanboys themselves, be afforded to all else, particularly when there is the slightest of challenge.

So here -- you have been proven to be more than a bit wrong (when wider history is more honestly assessed) but only correct is some narrow sense (in between "tides") as it were, with my own self willing to point out that partially right portion too -- even as I do see NOTHING of the sort EVER coming from YOU, even when it is spelled out in painstaking detail.

I would ask for some sort of retraction on your part, but I'm not a dentist, nor am in near enough range to put a knee to the chest to get leverage to pull that partial "rotten tooth" --- which leaves you possibly needing to pull it out on your own.

I can say that I have caught wiff of it's existence and foul odor as it were, for some years now, for I smell it each time the mouth opens. I do wish you could have it in some way remedied...

I doubt the string tied to a doorknob trick actually works very well, on all but the loosest of teeth, but the idea has it's charms. Or-- you could turn to the pliers technique. Either way, I'm afraid I cannot send any additional anesthesia to ease possible discomfort.

If it were actually just a "tooth" being spoken of -- one could suggest a course of anti-biotic to reduce swelling, before attempting extraction. The "medicine" presently being served right back to the source from which it usually flows, isn't exactly anti-inflammatory. But if what is sought is just more painful swelling of the gums, then keep it up. Keep right on doing and being as you have been on this forum for years now...

You post quite a long post - none of which changes the point. The plague wouldn’t hit Europe until 550 years later.

By the way, Gregory of Tours died in 594. That was 230 years before Charles the Bald was born and almost 800 years before the plague hit. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

You’re not good at making your own case, but you’re great at making mine.

What I said still stands.

You post quite a long post - none of which changes the point. The plague wouldn’t hit Europe until 550 years later.

That last reply would not have been at all necessary if you had taken a look at the links provided in my initial comment. Plague DID hit Europe previous to the time period denoted by the "550 years later". Could you not see that?

As far as Gregory of Tours dying long before the "Bald" guy, that does not in the least prove your point, but instead refutes it (in a narrow, almost technical sense) -- in that Gregory was a witness for plague reaching Europe (and France in particular) previous to the 14th century.

So stand on the beach at low tide near water's edge all you wish. But to pretend the waters (of plague) are at that level and had always been so...(until the 14th century) is to be willfully fooling yourself. Is it so that you will not need be ever corrected yourself in the slightest, as you go about from thread to thread castigating by any means possible persons you may see as critics of Romanism?

I gave you an inter-tidal, temporarily "dry" place to stand. Why not take it? There was no significant plague outbreak during that period --- which happens to be the period which was mentioned in passing conversation. Yet there WAS plague before that time, which was the point I was making.

Justinian's plague hit France too. Is that plain enough?

“Justinian’s plague hit France too. Is that plain enough?”

No. Justinian’s plague (in the 540’s) was 300 hundred years BEFORE Charles the Bald. Thus, no one could be worried about it - which was the original point made by the other poster. Go back and look at the thread.

You are really not helping yourself here. You keep supporting my point by pointing out there was no plague in Europe for three hundred years before Charles and more than 500 years after him. One of things you have to be able to do when discussing history is be able to count. Three hundred years before and 550 years after clearly means no plague anytime soon from the time of Charles the Bald. It’s just that simple.

You are still missing the point, even as you admit to it, and try to then use it somehow against me.

Which sort of habitual methodology of debate and discourse is the actual underlying "point" I was attempting to draw attention to, to challenge even pride itself, doing so using reasoning & methodology similar to that which I see yourself very much using.

Yet I was more generous, acknowledging the time period between the larger 200+ year spans of recurring plague outbreak as a dry spell --- which would leave your initial statement part-right, but still part wrong, for plague had indeed entered Europe long before the "550 years later" which you initially pointed towards.

“Yet I was more generous, acknowledging the time period between the larger 200+ year spans of recurring plague outbreak as a dry spell -— which would leave your initial statement part-right, but still part wrong, for plague had indeed entered Europe long before the “550 years later” which you initially pointed towards.”

And still that doesn’t effect my point in the least. The fact that it happened 200 years before Charles the Bald meant they were not worried about it. My point still stands. There was no plague in Europe. There wouldn’t be for 550 years yet.

And still that doesn’t effect my point in the least.

Actually, it still does.(I can do this all day long, same as you)

Here, let me correct your last statements. Correction will be in bold.

There was no significant outbreak of plague in Europe during that time. There wouldn’t be again for 550 years yet.

Otherwise, if we were to blandly look at that pair of statements in original unmodified form;

"There was no plague in Europe." "There wouldn’t be for 550 years yet."

would leave it suggestive that there was no plague in Europe previously, with that suggestion reinforced by the "for 550 years YET".

How can there be a [not] yet, when there was obviously a "before"?

Go ahead, go to the beach, enjoy yourself (if you can). But one hint --- do not throw bread crumbs or pieces, "upwind" to the seagulls.

“How can there be a [not] yet, when there was obviously a “before”?”

Simple - the before was in a different era and under a different culture and had no bearing whatsoever on the century in question. The after was in a different era and culture from the before and had no relation either to the before or the century in question.

So, going back to the very original point made: “Who knew there were comedians running around as the Plague threatened Europe!” There was no threat of plague. No one there had seen the plague in well over 200 years. No one there would see it again for 550 years yet. My point still stands.

Stands? Stands corrected is more like it.

Pope’s first six months reveal a ‘rich, complex’ personality >>

who is pro-life, pro traditional marriage and anti liberation theology, I bet the left just hates that. They were hoping that he was one of their own.