On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:39:40 -0400, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The other usage of "Dark Ages" is the general view of the poverty, > > superstitious ignorance, and stagnation during this period. This > > persisted until the rebirth of reason known as the Renaissance. This > > opened up a new era of optimism, prosperity, and scientific progress, > > all made possible by the philosophies of secular humanism and > > scientific method. > > Gary, again, what are your sources and list your evidence for this.
Let's just clip from a general internet site: The Early Medieval Era is sometimes still called the Dark Ages. This epithet originated with those who wanted to compare the earlier period unfavorably with their own so-called "enlightened" age. Modern scholars who have actually studied the time period would not so readily use the label, since passing judgment on the past interferes with a true understanding of the time and its people. Yet the term is still somewhat apt for the simple reason that we know relatively little about events and material culture in those times. http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa072502f.htm Definitions: Dark Ages, a period of stagnation and obscurity in literature and art, lasting, according to Hallam, nearly 1000 years, from about 500 to about 1500 A. D.. See Middle Ages, under Middle. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. dark ages n : the period of history between classical antiquity and the Italian Renaissance [syn: middle ages] Source: WordNet � 1.6, � 1997 Princeton University http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dark+ages&r=67 Dr. Steven Kreis gives a nice modern overview online in The History Guide and he has no problem with your 12th century Renaissance and neither do I. http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/ancient.html#table "Historians working on the problem of the Renaissance have never been able to decide when the period began, or even when it ended, although they all admit that a Renaissance did indeed occur. Some see its beginning in the 12th century, while others, in the 14th century. An even larger question looms: if there was such a thing as the Renaissance, regardless of when it began or ended, for whom was the Renaissance, a Renaissance? Did it affect all people at the same time? Or, was its impact felt only on a relatively small number of people in Northern Italian city-states, France, England and Holland?" http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture1c.html The traditional definition of around the 15th century as the Renaissance is useful because that is the foundation of the secular ideas of the modern nation-state as well as the first recognized 'modern' geniuses like Da Vinci and Machiavelli (much as I dislike the latter's ideas.) However, the 12th Century with the rise of more secularist scholars actually fits in better with my statements above. http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture26b.html >FYI I > have a history degree and specialized in the European Middle Ages. I also > don't believe in the Rennaisance (at least the pop definition of the term, > i.e. the period between 1500 and 1600). The reasons are too lengthy to go > into here, but mostly stem from the evidence that the growth of the > scientific method, humanism, learning, etc did not begin after 1500 but much > much earlier. Specifically, I'd reccommend you look at the 12th C > Rennaisance, and there are a number of good books I can reccommend on the > subject. Indeed this was the 2nd such Rennaisance to occur (the first was in > the mid-750s or so) so to suggest the MA were the "Dark Ages" are wildly > inaccurate on BOTH definitions. > > Damon, and lets not get into a discussion of the growth in superstition in > the post 1500 era... > Agreed, lets not. Gary "agreeable" maru 31 on Google for Easter Lemming _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
