In the latest issue of National Review (February 27, 06), there's an interesting review by Christopher Levenick of Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.
I haven't read this book. What caught my eye was the reviewer's use of the term Late Antiquity to refer to the Dark Ages.
If you think about it, "the Dark Ages" is a pretty tendentious way of characterizing a historical era. I suppose the term derives from the widespread illiteracy of the period, which has left historians somewhat "in the dark" about exactly what happened then. But the term also implies that this was a particularly backward and uninteresting time, when nothing of note happened. Was it?
Levenick writes that Stark
... recounts in considerable detail the evolution of humble business enterprises run by medieval monks into the thriving commercial city-states of Renaissance Italy. More suggestively, he traces these developments back to the so-called “Dark Ages.”
Along with a growing number of historians, Stark is inclined to view Late Antiquity as a period of remarkable commercial expansion and technical ingenuity. Measured against the Parthenon or the Coliseum, things like windmills, horseshoes, chimneys, water-wheels, stirrups, compasses, eyeglasses, swivel-point axles, and mechanical clocks may not seem particularly impressive. Nonetheless, such was the era’s humbler, but ultimately more consequential, scale of invention. The absence of large states may have invited external invasion, but it also spurred competition and fostered creativity, setting the stage for the global predominance that first became apparent in the 16th century.
Let's take another look at that list:
windmills
horseshoes
chimneys
water-wheels
stirrups
compasses
eyeglasses
swivel-point axles
mechanical clocks
Not bad for the "Dark" Ages, huh? I hope the more neutral - and more accurate - term Late Antiquity catches on.
-- Modern capitalism became possible only in the 18-19c with the advent of mechanical machinery.
-- Feudal society was strictly hierarchical. In general, it did not know the notion of equality between social groups. This has nothing to do with what we now understand as democracy.
Rodney Stark. The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
Posted by: Henry James | February 24, 2006 at 08:51 PM
Actually, there is a simple explanation of what is going on. NaRe readers are supposed tobelieve that Muslims live in the Middle Ages, so now they are told that capitalism and democracy are possible even in thi situation.
But no, this is all semantic manipulations.
-- Muslim socities are very far both from Westerrn and the Middle Ages. So, the exact meaning of the statement "Muslims live in the Middle Ages" is simply "Muslims are different". Well, yes, they are different. So what?
-- Anything close to modern capitalism and democracy is completely incomopatable with the Middle Ages. In other words, Twain's book is pure entertainment, nothing to do with serious history. Real King Arthur would enslave or execute Twain's character very soon.
Mark Twain. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Posted by: Henry James | February 25, 2006 at 09:13 PM
Damn, this sp dirt ;-)
Posted by: Henry James | February 25, 2006 at 09:41 PM
2006-02-26 George Will and political cursing
Posted by: Henry James | February 26, 2006 at 01:21 PM
I haven't read Stark's book, but I think his point is that the foundations of democracy, capitalism, and science were laid in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages -via such developments as the Magna Carta, the rise of burghers and guilds, and the theological premise of the uniformity of nature in accordance with divine laws.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 26, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Technically, it is all true. The point is, anyhow reasonably, medieval societies were were as uncapitalist as it gets.
Posted by: Henry James | February 26, 2006 at 10:34 PM
Another way to say the same thing. Yes, it is unfair to call early mammals like Jurassic beaver "primitive". In fact, these creatures were remarkably sophisticated.
From the other side, "lionizing" early mammals, calling Jurassic beaver an important step to modern human civilization is also absurd. Just call a beaver a beaver, a feudal society a feudal society, and everything will be fine ;-)
Posted by: Henry James | February 27, 2006 at 11:42 AM
When the dinosaurs were on spring break, did they go looking for some Jurassic beaver?
Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 27, 2006 at 01:19 PM
Predator dinosaurs could feed on them...
Posted by: Henry James | February 27, 2006 at 05:21 PM
Not unlike predator college kids today!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 28, 2006 at 01:56 PM