Post

And as others have mentioned, the Harrowing of Hell and the problem of the virtuous pagans seem like key medieval discourses in this context.

for my money the real action here is not in the appeal to different standards but in the conflation of analysis and apologetics

So often in those arguments, "standards" implies a single standard--"everyone," or some huge majority, believed one way. Closer inspection frequently indicates a range, even plethora, of outlooks. Those outlooks should include those held by the objects/victims of the alleged standards.

But by and large, as far as I can see, when pre-moderns consider the problem of ancestors doing something which they would consider wrong to do in his time, either they excuses it by appealing to the spirit in which they did it or relate it to a special divine command.

Do some of the early abolitionists make this claim? Influenced by enlightenment, claiming “now we know better”? I’d have to check but I’m wondering if Emerson, for example, might have said this. Or Parker, with his distinction better transient and permanent truth.

It is an interesting question from a science point of view, obviously there was loads of relearning from the past but I have no idea whether there were any judgments on morality of the people they were relearning from. Especially since a lot were non or pre Christian.

I was just talking with a friend who seemed to simultaneously be arguing that Aristotle had timeless value for us today, and that he had to be judged by the standards of his time. I believe even Aristotle would have been capable of acknowledging that particular hypocrisy.

I remember encountering some theological work from the Victorian era that did that, but can't remember the details. Maybe explaining some societal practice that seemed cruel, like banishing or shunning sinners, because the people back then were ignorant and afraid of God cursing their village

That one isn't, because the virtuous pagans are in limbo, not because they aren't virtuous but because they do not know Christ. He doesn't say that they are only conforming to the standards of the time. A more interesting example is Cato in heaven (given Cato's suicide).

If anything, I think Dante is doing the opposite, or nearly so. The virtuous pagans aren't given a pass, it's just that some are so virtuous as to at least partially transcend all the ways they were also wrong.

Would love to hear if otherwise.

My guess is that Early Christian writers — Augustine and Eusebius — would be your best early examples. I mean Thucydides and Herodotus approach this “cities that were once large are now small etc.”

I wonder if there are patristic or medieval comments on Romans 3:25b, Acts 14:16, or Acts 17:30 (Paul in Athens) that might come close. These verses came to mind because each has a kind of “well, back then…but now…” element.

(And yes, I know that particular bit of the story is almost certainly fictional, it's just an example.🤫)

I love this question. The sort of place I can imagine it happening is Chaucer's "Troilus and Criseyde". As far as I can remember, it doesn't. Which I feel supports what I take to be your point. The closest I can imagine is some allowance for classical pagans not being Christian.