Is the Dark Ages was really dark?
I always thought I knew the answer to the question of how long it lasted Middle Ages. This is the period of the fall of the Roman Empire to the modern period. The first half of the period, until 1066, the early Middle Ages (formerly called the Dark Ages). The other half is the only Middle Ages. In his book, God's philosophy, in which we aim to show how the medieval world laid the foundation of modern science, I mean in the period from the Norman Conquest to the discovery of America.
It is generally considered that the medieval period up to 1500, although some suggest the year of 1453 (the fall of Constantinople) to 1517 (Luther's theses). I've always felt that the year 1492 the best because not only is Columbus sailed, but came back, and the last Muslim kingdom in Spain was conquered.
However, at least two reviewers have complained that the Middle Ages actually finished earlier than I thought. This would mean that all contributions to the 14th century I marked as medieval actually belong to the Renaissance. I must admit that I am aware of the complaint. In his book, I noted that there is a habit that is something that is good, and it happened around the year 1400 (for example, in the painting), called the Quattrocento, and something bad happened in this period (such as the Hundred Years War) called it medieval. In fact, everything bad that has happened in any period referred to medieval, so we perhaps should not be surprising. Since the scientific development which I recorded good then he is part of the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages.
In response, I note the following. First, it is generally accepted among historians that the first half of the 15th century part of the Middle Ages. As defined period ends when begins the modern era, and it is impossible to set that date before 1453. Only a few attempts to move that date before 1492. Second, the Renaissance is not a historical period (and no one can agree on when it starts and ends). This is the only category invented by art historians in the 19th century. You can describe an architecture like Renaissance (unlike the example of Gothic), but you can not actually describe a period of time that way.
Finally, the Renaissance in Italy appeared before in northern Europe, and if you can say that the Renaissance in Florence begins before 1400, you can not say the same for France or the Netherlands (especially England). Much of the science which I explain in the book developed at Oxford and Paris. There is no way that the period before the Black Death in those cities can call the Renaissance.
In the end, none of that matters. I wrote a book that I rehabilitated a period of time, but the people involved at the time. The extent of Jean Buridan, Nicholas Oresmea and Merton calculators are nothing smaller because some reviewers claim that they did not live in the Middle Ages.
I always thought I knew the answer to the question of how long it lasted Middle Ages. This is the period of the fall of the Roman Empire to the modern period. The first half of the period, until 1066, the early Middle Ages (formerly called the Dark Ages). The other half is the only Middle Ages. In his book, God's philosophy, in which we aim to show how the medieval world laid the foundation of modern science, I mean in the period from the Norman Conquest to the discovery of America.
It is generally considered that the medieval period up to 1500, although some suggest the year of 1453 (the fall of Constantinople) to 1517 (Luther's theses). I've always felt that the year 1492 the best because not only is Columbus sailed, but came back, and the last Muslim kingdom in Spain was conquered.
However, at least two reviewers have complained that the Middle Ages actually finished earlier than I thought. This would mean that all contributions to the 14th century I marked as medieval actually belong to the Renaissance. I must admit that I am aware of the complaint. In his book, I noted that there is a habit that is something that is good, and it happened around the year 1400 (for example, in the painting), called the Quattrocento, and something bad happened in this period (such as the Hundred Years War) called it medieval. In fact, everything bad that has happened in any period referred to medieval, so we perhaps should not be surprising. Since the scientific development which I recorded good then he is part of the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages.
In response, I note the following. First, it is generally accepted among historians that the first half of the 15th century part of the Middle Ages. As defined period ends when begins the modern era, and it is impossible to set that date before 1453. Only a few attempts to move that date before 1492. Second, the Renaissance is not a historical period (and no one can agree on when it starts and ends). This is the only category invented by art historians in the 19th century. You can describe an architecture like Renaissance (unlike the example of Gothic), but you can not actually describe a period of time that way.
Finally, the Renaissance in Italy appeared before in northern Europe, and if you can say that the Renaissance in Florence begins before 1400, you can not say the same for France or the Netherlands (especially England). Much of the science which I explain in the book developed at Oxford and Paris. There is no way that the period before the Black Death in those cities can call the Renaissance.
In the end, none of that matters. I wrote a book that I rehabilitated a period of time, but the people involved at the time. The extent of Jean Buridan, Nicholas Oresmea and Merton calculators are nothing smaller because some reviewers claim that they did not live in the Middle Ages.
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar