Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Books Media Book Reviews

The Renaissance 107

Posted by JonKatz from the technology-and-culture dept.
Antitechnologists, academic and other snoots, and neo-Luddites equate technology with the erosion of culture and civilization. A neat little book by Paul Johnson details how technology helped spark the Renaissance, which is an interesting perspective. One day historians may be writing similiar books about this time.

The Renaissance
author Paul Johnson
pages 197
publisher Modern Library Chronicles
rating 7/10
reviewer Jon Katz
ISBN 00679-64086-X
summary how technology helped re-invent culture

*

The Renaissance is a short history of the period considered a high-water mark of humanity's relationship with the imagination. Historian Paul Johnson goes back to the Dark Ages to write about how the growth of intermediate technology sparked one of the greatest periods of cultural growth and invention, the Renaissance.

Technology made it possible, he concludes.

"This was," he writes, "the invention, followed by the extraordinarily rapid diffusion, of printing. The Romans produced a large literature. But in publishing it they were, as in many other fields, markedly conservative." The Romans, writes Johnson, knew about the codex -- a collection of folded and cut sheets, sewn together and enclosed within a binding. But they clung to the old-fashioned scroll as the normative form of the book.

In the Middle Ages, the spread of paper and the invention of printing by movable type was the central technological event leading the Renaissance, the spark that triggered an explosion in art, teaching, research and writing, Johnson writes. The invention of movable type for letterpress had three enormous advantages: it could be easily renewed, being cast from a mold; it could be used repeatedly until worn out; it introduced strict uniformity of lettering. (In a way, sounds like the Net's early architecture.)

Technology also had a profound affect on art, perspective, architecture and design, as Johnson also points out in this readable book.

The rest is, as they say history. Johnson tells it with authority, clarity and brevity. This is a neat book to give a teacher or parent muttering about all that time online, or lamenting the high culture of times past and the fact that kids have all gone to cultural Hell.

Sometimes unwittingly, "The Renaissance" connects the flowering of that period with the extraordinary outpouring of ideas, stories and culture made possible by the invention of the Net and the Web. Future historians may be writing about the history of this period in much the way Johnson takes on that one. It's always nice to know where we come from, as well as where we might be headed.

You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Renaissance More

The Renaissance

Comments Filter:

  • Better book (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Try "Quantum Jump: A Survival Guide for the New Renaissance" by W.R. Clement.

    His theory is that the discovery of perspective is the technological event that sparked the original renaaissance, and we are going through a similar "era shift" right now. The technological event that kicked off our new renaissance was the quantum mechanics revolution in physics that took place near the beginning of the century.
  • Romans were pretty close to having multiple reapers and steam engines. Why didn't they follow up on bright scientific ideas? Slavery. No need to build a machine when you could just throw another slave at the problem.

  • Re:Bangs head against sharp object (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    but, but... it's the new Renaissance! See, when you're playing Quake 3, or spamming IRC, or browsing porn, you're really just like Da Vinci! Technology is the answer to everything! Please shove a red hot poker up my ass!

    -- JonKatz

  • Good point... This is the way I heard it when I studied some medieval history:

    476 AD (fall of the Roman Empire) to 800 AD (Crowning of Charlamagne) = "Dark Ages"
    801 AD - 1400s AD - "Middle Ages" or "Medieval"
    Post 1450 AD - "Renaissance"

    Western Europe didn't go straight from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance... there was a lot in between. The truly "dark age" of europe was when the west was still sorting out the Gothic invasions that had destroyed the western roman empire. (though, given the history of violent strife in europe, especially in the 20th century, one could claim that they are still sorting all of that out :)

    -Dean
  • Well, one could argue that the conditions of history allowed people like Michelangelo to display his talents. How many Michelangelos are there in the slums of New Dehli or the getting killed in the Congo without any opportunity to present his contributions to the world? That's where technologies and wealth-creation play a role in helping foster a "renaissance".

    -Dean
  • ...Historians will be writing books about the past.

  • The factor that's always forgotten when the impact of early printing is discussed is the role played by the introduction of cheap, plant fibre based paper.

    It doesn't matter a damn if printing enables you to slash the labour cost of producing books if you still have to use (very expensive) vellum. The material costs would make sure books still stay rare and expensive.

    Printing was only one of two technologies that where needed,but which luckily came along at roughly the same time.

    After all, if history was only slightly different we might all be right now plodding along in a field holding a plow and looking at the rear end of an ox.

  • How come people keep confusing capitalism with democracy? Capitalism may have finally won over most of it's competing ism:s but democracy is still in a lot of trouble. That fight is raging all over the globe.
  • But I think that people now have more hubris than anything thinking that they are creating another.
  • Probably Guns, Germs, and Steel [fatbrain.com].
    --
    Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom

  • one must press on into curent and future technical realities
    and imbue them with the creative force of the human spirit.

    "In the age of natural science, since about the middle of the
    nineteenth century, the civilized activities of mankind are gradually
    sliding downward, not only into the lowest regions of nature, but even
    beneath nature. Technical science and industry become sub-nature.

    "This makes it urgent for man to find in conscious experience a
    knowledge of the spirit, wherein he will rise as high above nature as
    in his sub-natural technical activities he sinks beneath her. He will
    thus create within him the inner strength not to go under.

    (From Rudolf Steiner's last published communication)

    regards,
    http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner


  • > The Renaissance wasn't caused by new technologies,
    > new technologies sprouted because of the Renaissance.

    hear hear! i must agree with you completely!

  • Computers are stupid, they cannot be neither good nor evil. Humans on the other hand...

    ...are still stupid (for the most), but are capable of good or evil (but usually indifference.)

  • umm... of course I know that series, that's where I picked the name from oh-so-long-ago in 1996 :P
  • ok, anyways, the character always does everything with the best intention. many people out there do things with bad intention, or even no intention.
  • Hey, I just call it as I see it.

    Anyways, I've been using this nick for four and a half years on the net, so I really don't care about irony. Don't see what's so ironic either :P
  • It is well known, at least, in circles where the history of this era are well known, that the printing press had nothing to do with the Renaissance. It was not until well into the 1500s that books other than the Bible, were printed. The only book to come off the "Gutenberg" press was the Bible.

    Additionally, it is a misconception that Gutenberg printed anything. The project to build the press was controlled by the Church. Gutenberg was merely the project manager. He was removed from his position before the completion of the project and the printing of the first Bible.

    I think, therefore, ken_i_m

  • Gift? (Score:1)

    by Kahlan ( 73864 )
    "This is a neat book to give a teacher or parent muttering about all that time online, or lamenting the high culture of times past and the fact that kids have all gone to cultural Hell."

    Again, the only way I could see this as a good gift for those seemingly upset about their children or whomever spending 'all that time online' is if they were really looking for something to justify change in their attitude.
    "Oh, look, honey. Our child is spending more time online than in school because he's part of a cultural revolution,"

    "You don't say! I was reading about this high-fangled DSL-thingy you can get. Sounds like Junior could use it. I wish I had been part of such a revolution."

    Yeah, right.

    Most parents I know don't feel they always have to justify their attitude to their children, and besides, the simple "Because I don't want you online, that's why!" will do.

    As a teenager, and as a student who has studied some European History, I don't see as obvious or as convincing a parallel from the Renaissance to now as to motivate anyone to change their views on such a touchy subject.

  • yeah, every age is full of people who are *convinced* that they are smack in th emiddle of some watershed of humanity.

    And it seems to me that the people who *are* living in really crucial points in history generally have no clue, they are too busy having a life.

    One day we'll look back and say "ooh wow" perhaps, but right now it's just all too pretentious for words. And then there's the internet.
  • Its a mild disappointment, when you realilze that Katz work isn't written to inspire anyone.
    To a degree, slashdot is that way as well.
    By definition, the intelligence of half of the readers is below average.
    But people like believing in things that aren't real.
  • It's probably just a gross mistake by the author. Yet another: "technology will save the world. Let's all pat each other on the backs" book.

    ___________________________
    http://www.hyperpoem.net [hyperpoem.net]
  • You know the anime Rorouni Kenshin? Guy walks around fighting without killing because he hates his past as a highly skilled assassin.
  • Irony of ironies you should say that considering your nick :)

  • That was the irony. You said people can be good or evil, and you've got the nick of a guy who's always walking in between.
  • It has been argued that the conceptual dawn of the Renaissance is coincident with Dante and Petrarch working the humane themes of the Provençale poets against classical forms in the vernacular Italian. Certainly the activities of the Renaissance printers of Italy attests to the signal popularity and importance of these texts to the new reading audience.
  • This comment displays a dramatic lack of familiarity with the the early history of print. Hundreds of versions of vernacular poetry are published in Italy prior to the sixteenth century. Even in belated and benighted England, Caxton had published his Morte D'Arthur by 148%.
  • Paul Johnson is an eminently qualified and erudite, albeit populist, historian whose work is widely read and generally admired for its attention to detail, if not for precision of analysis. Your comment is absurd.
  • Active at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
  • I think Johnson would argue only in the matter of impact. How pervasive and disruptive would the ideas of Northern Italy be without the broad dissemination the press makes possible. Depending on who you ask, the Renaissance predates print by a century and a half, but it is merely a game of scholiasts, antiquarians and Florentine and Venetian bohos until Aldus and Gutenberg. Suddenly, every clerk in Europe is empowered to influence the kultur and innovation in thinking and representation become pervasive.

    Similarly, the Reformation can be viewed as a renaissance in thought about the dominant social institution of the time. Erasmus makes clear that the Reformation is impossible without the rebirth of classical ideas, the reification it makes possible, the search for original truths and first insights (the return to Scripture).

    There can be no question that the vernacular Bibles are instrumental to the Reformation, but they are likewise crucial to the Renaissance: the very impetus for the vernacular versions stems from the realization that the Vulgate was not some bedewed and bejeweled moment of Heaven-dropt science, channeled by St. Jerome, but was once a vernacular itself, merely rendered out of the Greek by Hieronymus.
  • I hear people saying, "We're in a new Renaissance!" and others saying, "No, we're not!" I don't believe that the Italians of 1455 AD were discussing whether a sea change was undergoing their belief systems, or if these newfangled inventions like the printing press or the "Monke's wrench" (later called a "Monkey wrench") would change civilization as they knew it. I'll bet dollars to donuts that they were busy saying things like, "Hey, neat! This is going to make my life easier!"

    When changes like these happen, I don't think people notice them while they're happening. We only notice them when they're over, and we then figure out how to continue with our lives while the next big change occurs. "The New Renaissance" will be followed by "The Second New Renaissance," and eventually the "New And Improved Third Re-Renaissance! (TM) (With Extra Changing Power)!"

    I propose that we table the discussion as to whether we're undergoing a Renaissance. The only people who are going to be able to determine that will be the history authors of the future, and their students who will be our (great**3)grandchildren. Let's try do to things that won't cause them to curse our names.

  • I haven't read the book, but from the review and posting(s) on it, it sound like the book is entirely about the "Renaissance" and the "print". If so than I am not interested. But I have the following question:

    what about the "have" and the "have-not" when it comes to tech.?!

    Does the book address this? If not, this is one area where tech. end up dividing people and causing a lot of trouble. Just take a look at 3rd word countries and tell me this is not so if we continue on the current path.
  • <Count Floyd>Scary, kids...</Count Floyd> :-)

    Seriously, I will snarf this book, and I know just the place for it--on the shelf next to Jacob Bronowski's The Abacus and the Rose, with the script of a short radio play at the end that beautifully illustrates the same point.

  • (See, luddites even hang out on-line...)

    Take a look at:

    Luddism Index [syntac.net]

    For some examples of radical critiques of technology. A couple I'd recommend:


    ---
  • The causes of signifacent historical events, like the Renaissance, is the meat and potatoes of the historian's profession. There is a tendency to hold up singular reasons for events, but the more we learn, the more we see it's not that simple, ever. Even after all the possible causes are taken in to account, there remains the fundimental question, "and what role did the people play?" To what extend were the people alive at the time made by the times, and to what extend were the times made by them? I, for one, refuse to belive that Michelangelo [wayne.edu] was an android made by the world; that man is but a machine!
  • Other factors that have been put forward as contributing to the Renaissance are the Black death which killed half the workforce, driving up labor prices and gave the intellecual minds of the time a big wack accross the head kind of like the Peloponnesian War gave the minds of Athens. Some of the intellecual practices of the monistaries, like having a book read to you while you ate, started to become common among the upperclasses, alling to their learning.
  • His mommy must of got him hooked on Phonics...

    I can't even read 1 a month. Damn word assciation systems...

    Sotaku
  • Whether you call him moderate or not, I think it's important our US cousins should know that Paul Johnson is not a scholar but a journalist who fancies himself as a scholar. His writings have been attacked by serious scholars as sloppily edited, inaccurately researched and uninsightful. Also, in my entirely personal opinion, he's a stupid, snobbish buffoon.
    Dave

  • For some reason the Dutch hardly suffered at all from the Black Death... They were probably faster than the Italians in the early days, so it's sort of hard to argue that the Black Death caused the Renaissance

  • The Renaissance comes a century later, and anyway, to be Marxist about it, progress is usually measurable in terms of increasing capital, and the Black Death surely bring that...
  • My guess is that there's a statistical correlation but no cause and affect there
  • Actually the city of Rome itself was a joke by 150 AD, because its so hard to run an Empire from there, especially when your troops have to walk into battle. Milan, founded as a barracks, was the de facto capital of the West by then. Rome had two dangerous borders, a long one in the North (against the Germans) and in the East (against the Persians)The northeast corner is Constaninople, which is why Constantine moved there. No signs of wimpiness there
  • I think it's interesting that - as far as I know - no one at the time seemed very aware of the nature of the influence the new media had on them. Let me phrase it as a question: are there any references (written scrolls of the time) to the fact that the dissemination of information (i.e., the printing press) is the genesis and/or prime mover of this inspirational time? That they were aware that all this media was causing all this smart thinking?

    I am often reminded of the nature of the evolution of the mind of man when I think of the fact that, before the 15th century, artists did not employ the concept of perspective and the vanishing point in their works! They were more like cave paintings before that time, with all figures about the same size regardless of their placement. But the mankind himself trained the mind to see things as they actually were and to portray them as such on paper. In a similar manner, we learned - according to Robert Pirsig - to think Socratically and logically (to categorize things according to Aristotelian logic, if I remember correctly) because the Socratics won the day, philosophically, over the Sophists, and from that day forward, virtually the fiber and wiring of our brain was forever conditioned toward viewing the world Socratically rather than like a Sophist. It drove the protagonist of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence" insane, of course ('they forgot about QUALITY!!!').

    Although no one would argue that we should abandon perspective in representational Art, it is fascinating to ponder on what other aspects of our daily lives have been formed so long ago in such an unknowing and unforseen fashion (again I refer to Crichton's "Timeline"). Accurately understanding how those tiny pebbles of insight and belief changed the course of the mighty river of humanity might help us to understand the impact of the decisions we make today, and so guide our hand in shaping our collective destiny. Sounds like a good read.

  • Yah, I was referring to the frustration expressed by the main character in Pirsig's book over what he perceived as the domination of Socratic philosophy over Sophistic. Now, I don't really understand any of this, but it fascinated me much like a dog is fascinated by quantum mechanics. I think my point relates to why we are the way we are today, and Pirsig rails against the status quo and our ancestors who arranged to have it be that way. Insane? Well, it's tough to get back at them now...

    Again, my point was: If we learn to understand how issues in the past and the resolution of them by the people at the time have shaped our thinking today, then perhaps we can gain guidance as we sort through today's problems. Maybe it's no more profound than "he who fails to learn the lessons of history is condemned to repeat it", but there seems to be more there than just that. In any case, since I have failed to learn enough about philosophy to even begin to discuss with any alacrity (I got that word from Monday Night Football) the difference between socratic and sophistic realms of thought, I might actually be talking nonsense and trying to make it sound pretty... :/

  • see some rather more interesting, entertaining and damning illustrations of technology's sociological effects by picking up Terry Pratchett's newest, The Truth.
    read the review at your favorite book source, or go to barnes & noble [bn.com] and quicksearch "pratchett truth".

    ---
  • according to Robert Pirsig - to think Socratically and logically (to categorize things according to Aristotelian logic, if I remember correctly) because the Socratics won the day, philosophically, over the Sophists, and from that day forward, virtually the fiber and wiring of our brain was forever conditioned toward viewing the world Socratically rather than like a Sophist.

    Sophist philosophy is alive and well, and always has been. Witness 99.999% of all political rhetoric.

    Socrates killed nothing, save himself with poison hemlock at the decree of the Athenian council. His way of philosophy lives on too, but it's probably *still* a minority viewpoint even after all these centuries and millenia. Witness the near-ubiquity of people (stupidly or otherwise) making claims of having knowledge; Socrates claimed to know nothing.

    Even when one thing is demonstrably superior to another thing that does not mean that the first thing "wins" or "kills off" the second. Quite frequently the two things co-exist, often for a very long time.

  • Most chages aren't recognised until after the event. The Internet and the possibility it encourages for the free exchange of ideas on a global basis is a distinct event in the history of man. We don't have to be coming from a Dark Age, but we can always try and enlighten the world and cast eyes over dark thinking of which there is still a lot about.
  • High school indeed. Then in college you get all the shady side info. Especially that the majority of shit printed in the Ren was re-vamps of Roman mystical and pseudo-medical magic texts. The Ren was all about the blending of Style and Spirituality. So basically, a bunch of rich trendy kids thinking that they're the Buddha or something. If that's what this book is saying the internet is about now, slick. Otherwise, keep it live and focus on now - cuz being alive now means ya gots the privlage of knowing what everyone before yeah did and then more. perspective and shit. in other words, comparing seperate moments in history is kinda wack.
  • Also on a critical note (about the conjecture in general): How many technical inovations appeared during the rule of the Roman empire? We all know what the Romans contributed intellectually, compared to the Greeks for example (i.e. nothing). I read someone (in a foreword to a math textbook) who recently compared our times, with respect to educational ideals and the decline of the status of the libral arts, with that of the Romans. That is, only "bankable" skills count. A person in power, politically or in the private sector, is not expected to have more general knowledge about the arts, literature, science, etc, that at least I associate with the renaissance.
  • The chinese had the movable letter printing technique and the paper technique for maybe 500 years before the europeans invented it. Still, it did not lead to this takeoff of culture, the explosion of scientific breakthroughs etc.

    Actually, the evidence indicates the Koreans had the first movable-type printing press.

    As to why it had little impact in China, that's a little more complex. The number one series is the works of Confuscious. The Chinese culture valued very traditional books. Change was not good. So they used printing presses - but only for existing works. Full page plates.

    So, other cultures had the printing press waaaay before Gutenberg, and didn't have a 'Renaissance'. Kind of totally disproves the main thesis of the book, doesn't it?

  • My point was that we have discovered things well beyond what the Romans had. I certainly didn't mean to imply they were in any way unsophisticated. The steam engines are a good example of ancient tech - although it is disappointing that nobody ever really did anything with them. Slaves are just a lot cheaper. :(
  • I actually remember reading that the crusades have minimal responsibility for the rediscovering of Greco-Roman texts. The crusaders were just to intent on hacking infidels and their kingdom too ephemeral to play a major role. The reconquest of Islamic Spain deserves more credit.

    You are right to point out this as a cause, though. In fact it is the main cause; the rennaissance was mostly through and people were moving on by the time the printing press came on the scene.

    In any case, my point was that the term "rennaissance" to anything today is somewhat inappropriate. What we are doing now is new.

  • Even the relatively metropolitan Byzantine Empire had little contact with outsiders beyond military encounters.

    ???
    Didn't huge amounts of trade pass through Constantinople? I remember reading that you could see merchants from "all corners of the world" there, that it had considerably contact with the slavs, and that it was a popular destination for pilgrims. And that's just from a Eurocentric perspective. I do know that the silk route broke down (some Byzantine monks smuggled eggs out of China) and vaguely recall that there was a decline in trade after the big world empires broke up, but this should be nothing irreparable.

    And, in any case, there was some innovation going on among the Byzantines and Arabs. Not much new, but then the Romans didn't come up with that many new things either...as far as technology is concerned, you can probably attribute the lack of development to the possession of slaves and Byzantine conservatism.

    On the other hand, I remember hearing something about urban life declining in the Byzantine empire everywhere except Constantinople...if anyone has any good info on that, I would love to hear it.

    And, btw, the renaissance is more than simply the rebirth of trade and learning. Otherwise, you could take the whole later middle ages and call it the renaissance picking up speed.

  • It's fair to say the Renaissance doesn't mean much in terms of technology or learning. But doesn't it make sense to point to it as a fundamental change in the attitudes people had? Inasmuchas, the Medievalers thought of the present as being much the same as the past, whereas the Renaissancers thought they were in a whole new era. That sort of attitude impacts the way people approach all sorts of things...
    Or am I making a mistake?

  • interesting point of view. And what do you think about culture ? for me, culture is the influence of the past in our present. Maybe I'm wrong but i can tell you that the fact that our society is based on technology, materialism and stuff like that is because of our culture. And there is a great probability that this influence raised with "renaissance", century of light...

    And i'm okay with all you're comments about the relationship between the net and the renaissance... it seems that Katz goes a little bit too far on his conclusions ;o) internet internet...

  • True, we are gaining new technology. But this does not equal a renaissance. We are not in a rennaisance for a very simple reason: intelligence. In the renaissance you saw a general rise in the education and thoughfulness of the common man. This is not the case now. Although a small minority retain independent thought, much of society blindly believes what they are told by CNN, newspapers, even on the internet. Yes, John, it's true, the internet doesn't automatically make you an intellectual. It's all in how you use it. If you use it only to go to large corporate web sites, etc, you are no more intellectual that the guy watching football on ESPN. What I'm getting at is that for a scoiety to have a true rennaisance, it's not enough for a small group of people to invent new things, members of society have to start thinking more for themselves. Tehnology CAN lead to this occuring, but it doesn't have to.
  • Something I have noticed about history/philosophy/natural philosophy literature: It is all just a new way of saying or doing the exact same thing.

    Innovation, evolution of thought is spread through free exchange of ideas. The printing press was the equivalent of ball bearings. Now we have the internet (jiffy lube).

    Off topic: It reminds me of an idea I had for a pro-capitalism commercial:

    Kid: Dad, why do you put oil in your car?
    Dad: Well son, look at Mr. Dictator's car over there. He keeps on adding more power, and developing ways to create more power, but without Freedom (Rtm) Brand Oil, his car will not run efficiently. Eventually it will break down, not because he is racing my car, but because the parts do not work efficiently without Freedom Brand Oil, wearing upon eachother until they break down....

    What it comes down to, the more ideas we have access too, the more information we exchange, the better off we all are, surprise surprise- the printing press sparked it off.

    Heres to the written word!

  • We need to look at what's truly missing: there is no paradigm shift like there was in the Renaissance. They went from an abstract view of spirituality to a new form where worldly characteristics were combined with spritual ones. For example, pre-Renaissance art is usually two dimensional iconographic depictions of religious figures, and it would be thought blasphemous to try to represent them realistically. Contrast that with, say, Michaelangelo's David, whose "perfect" physical body represents his worthiness in the eyes of God.

    The combination of physical and ethereal space was a major breakthrough in the culture, influencing both art (perspective drawings especially) and architecture (grandiose monuments to God, to the worthiness of a region's people, etc). While the Internet may foster more communication, so far is has not changed how the dominant culture sees itself and the world.

    I highly recommend Margaret Wertheim's (sp?) book _The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace_ for a good synopsis of how people viewed the world throughout European history (though I think her parallels with our time are a bit weak).

  • I have no issues with JonKatz, except that ocassionally he has BS, hippocritical views. this guy Paul Johnson really needs to go back and take world history over again. I mean come on!

    The printing press was a great invention. From a Christian point of view it allowed the spreading of the Word of God. One reason Guttenberg was the number one most important figure of the last 1000 years according to the History Channel. However, as history states the printing press came second to the Renaissance. It was and advance but not a cause.

    I will also admit the coming of internet-connectivity is also a very impressive coming of technology but, it still has a long way to go. What we are seeing is the infant stage of the internet. What we are seeing is a slow process on the evolution of an idea made real. This becoes great when it becomes a need. A severe way of living not just for geeks, nerds and what-have-you. But a severe and needed way of living and surviving for all people. Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa, my cat...

    When it reaches that stage, I will consider the internet one of the greatest inventions ever.

    Another thing that really irks me on the whole "The 100 most infulential people pf the last 1000 yeas" was the association of the internet to Bill Gates. Granted Win95 made connecting more inportant and a greatly needed task, he should not be the associated person! He is a influential person, I mean the guy owns a company that created an OS that runs on 80%+ of all computers. That in it self is impressive!

    ~AdmrlNxn

  • I think the point of reviewing this book was to counter the commonly held notion that technology, or rather dependence upon technology, diminishes the quality or depth of a society's culture.

    And so what if it isn't original? Naked Blonde chicks aren't orignial, either. But I still enjoy them.

  • The most interesting thing about the Renaissance is that it marked the end of a long period in Europe in which all technological progress (except possibly military) had ceased/stagnated.

    This shift did not occur overnight but gradually, albiet at a speedy pace.

    The Renaissance wasn't brought about by any technology, but rather trade and by the contact with foreign cultures that trade brought.

    Lack of stimulating trade and contact caused by Feudal goverments and cultures were the primary cause of the "Dark Ages". Even the relatively metropolitan Byzantine Empire had little contact with outsiders beyond military encounters.

    Trade created wealth that allowed people to pursue Art, Science, Philosophy, etc, as it had before with the Greeks and Romans.

    The technological innovations of the Renaissance (such as the printing press) were results of wealth.

    Making analogies between the Renaissance/Printing Press and Modern/Interent is only looking at it in the most shallow way.

    The Industrial Revolution began the pace of trade, manufacturing and wealth as it exists (at an even greater pace) today. Even in the earliest days of the I.R. trade was occuring at a rate which would dazzle a Medici.

    The prosperity that we see in most nations is a result of 100+ years of Industrial Revolution and machinery-enabled trade. The Internet is a result of this.

    Expecting the Internet to bring about a new Renaissance is putting the cart before the horse. The Renaissance is still with us... it never ended.

  • It also signalled the decline of absolute papal rule with individuals such as Copernicus (even though his life generally sucked after his solar system discoveries went public)

    I think you mean Galileo. Copernicus was dead before his work was published (or at least within days of seeing it published)....Of course, being dead probably does mean that "your life generally sucks," but it had nothing to do with heliocentrism.

  • No Ren! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sorry, but the Renaissance is largely a myth created by historians and literary theorists. They can't even agree on when it occurred - 1300's? 1400's? 1500's? The fact is, medieval Europeans had been exposing themselves to new ideas, and laying the groundwork for Western mathematics and Western technology, since the 1000's.

    The idea of a "dark age" in Europe prior to 1000 is mostly valid; the idea of this "dark age" continuing post-1000 until all of a sudden, knowledge, learning, and technology burst on the scene with the "Renaissance" is pure hooey.

    Moreover, the Greek reading, literary-loving types extolled by the proponents of the idea of a "Renaissance", had nothing to do with the rise of technology in medieval Europe. They spent their time reading, not tinkering. Medieval craftsmen had been making advances in knowledge for centuries before the "Renaissance" (also, the "Renaissance" started before the invention of printing, so one can't even point to anything resembling a cause and effect relationship between the two).

    Likewise, Western mathematics and science were created with the birth of the Western Universities (Cambridge, Oxford, Paris, Milan, etc.) CENTURIES before the "Renaissance" dabblers in ancient texts thought they had "rediscovered" Greek and Arabic mathematics and science.

    Basically, the "Renaissance" is a literary phenomenon pushed by people who want to denigrate the Middle Ages and push the notion that the West is somehow a continuation of ancient, classical Greek civilization, when in fact it is a totally distinct and seperate civilization.

  • Bangs head against sharp object (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Jon, no, we don't equate technology with bad stuff. We equate the near-deification of technology with sloppy values, the uncritical adoption of technology with irresponsibility and the pursuit of progress as and end unto itself as short sightedness. I'm happy I have fire, the wheel and 20 year old Scotch but I don't want a drunk behind the wheel of a car. Apply that rule to the patenting of genes and the use of said technology without stringent testing. That's what we neo-Luddites are against. Now excuse me, I really must go get a horse to kick me in the head as I'm not happy with the amount of senselessness I've heard from you.

  • The Renaissance wasn't caused by new technologies, new technologies sprouted because of the Renaissance.

    The Renaissance was caused by a suddenly influx of knowledge and information. THe simultaneous Reconquista of Spain from the Muslims allowed muslim texts and knowledge to flow into Europe while the fall of Constantinople send fleeing intellectuals from the Byzantine Empire into the musch more intellectually backwards western europe.

    In addition, the printing press, you must remember, was an innovation borrowed from the Persians (who got the idea from China). The printing press was a result of the Renaissance, not its cause.

    -Dean

  • Gutenberg produced the first Bible c. 1455, but the Italian Renaissance was in full swing by then, largely an outcome of the mercantile culture of the Italian city-states. The later European Renaissance movements were more outgrowths of the Italian one than spawned by the printing press. They too seem to have been caused mostly by the growth of town culture and the rise of the middle class.

    Good point -- I've been trying to remember all that renaissance history I learned when I spent a semester in Rome. You summed it up pretty well.

    Further, I'd add that many of the artistic developments of the renaissance were fueled by the rediscovery of ancient Roman works of art -- not the development of new technologies, and certainly not the printing press. The development of perspective certainly owes something to the study of geometry, but that was also relatively late in the scheme of things (and had nothing to do with the press). I don't know when books like On Painting were first actually printed. Maybe the press aided their diffusion? (Although I imagine that diffusion would be rather late behind the diffusion of perspective through traveling artists...)

    -schussat

  • The Renaissance was the expression of ideas, philosophy and art. The artwork of the Renaissance was generally more vibrant and energetic than what had come before. It also signalled the decline of absolute papal rule with individuals such as Copernicus (even though his life generally sucked after his solar system discoveries went public) challenging the assumptions of the past.

    Rapid technological advances signalled the end of the Renaissance and ushered in the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, while raising overall production in the world, also served to lower the status of the individual to a cog in the machine. Technology doomed the world to shades of gray for quite some time.
  • Um... no offense, but duh. I thought that was one of those things taught in high school alongside "Columbus discovered America" and "Atoms look just like the Bohr model predicts" -- that the cultural revolution named the Renaissance was a direct result of cheap, widely availably printing and the ensuing increased literacy of the non-aristocratic class (sidenote: it was also assisted by the huge masses of wealth -- including cloth recycled into paper -- left after 1/3 of europe's population died in the plague. heh).

    And to save this comment from being flamebait or troll or whatever, let's examine how the current "technology revolution" is different from the printing press. I think it's critical to focus on the printing press's effect of increased literacy among the non-aristocracy. This didn't instantly propel them into power positions and topple the aristocracy or anything, but it DID increase awareness of injustice, and led (indirectly at least) to cultural revolutions that involved the common person demanding more power and autonomy.

    Where is this happening nowadays? I guess we could argue that the outrage against the DMCA etc is an example of this, but it seems kind of early to tell where that's going. I certainly don't think any governments are going to be overthrown soon. Reformed? Let's hope so.

  • Johnson is hardly an "ultra right wing conservative." He supported Thatcher, but so did a lot of folks. He would most accurately be known as a man of the moderate Right. The book you mention, Intellectuals, is reaqlly quite a fun read. You can get the scoop on some of history's greatest and most influential loons. One thing is for sure, though, and you are very correct: Paul Johnson is a Spankee.

    "When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."

  • Computers are stupid, they cannot be neither good nor evil. Humans on the other hand.

    There's not a thing technology can do without a human being thinking of it first and understanding it.

    As a result the digital divide is reduced from this Terminator crap to a divide between people just as it always was and always will be.

    As long as we only use computers as tools nothing more nothing less, computers will be ahead of us precisely because they are used to their fullest by those don't submit to such paranoid bullshit.

  • Antitechnologists, academic and other snoots, and neo-Luddites equate technology with the erosion of culture and civilization.

    Indeed a lot of people do this without really knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunatly, making the same argument from the other side is no better or more impressive.

    This is a neat book to give a teacher or parent muttering about all that time online, or lamenting the high culture of times past and the fact that kids have all gone to cultural Hell.

    Perhaps, but frankly these people do have a point. If this book is mostly a history book as you make it out to be, this book most likely won't change any of these people's minds. They already know what technology has provided. What it doesn't provide and has taken away is what bothers them.

    We need more writing on why correct implementation and scrutiny are very important when developing and integrating technology into our society, and how this is the larger problem. Simply lumping all "technology" in a box and saying it sucks is not the solution. Pointing out that public apathy and professional self censorship are a big problem is important as well. We don't have any mechanisms in our world to control tech development. Our society is engrained with the notion of profit making and growth through the rapid advancement of technology. The ones who conciously or subcounciously don't agree with this aren't going to be persuaded by a book on tech history.

    I'll stick with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
  • As a veteran Katz-flamer, I have to point this out: You're making one of the same mistakes Katz makes--the ones that make us bitch and flame here in hope of The Taco Bunch finding "us" a better columnist.

    What you've got are two facts: 1) Katz makes "'obvious' observations." 2) A lot of us are annoyed at Katz for making these "observations."

    There are a few different ways you can put those two facts together.

    You could take it at face value: We, the flamers, are annoyed because Katz isn't doing his job very well. In this case, we're annoyed because he's followed his usual formula: Reword jacket blurb on book; add "One day historians may be writing similiar books about this time," or its prolix, ungrammatical, post-Columbine equivalent. He's supposed to be a pro, but his work is all half-assed, so we can't believe he's still got a job, and we bitch about it.

    You could be cynical: Katz was hired because he's unimaginative and doesn't write well, and will get flamed into the dirt every time his column gets posted, because /. is populated by vulgar smartypantses. These flamers' pageviews are valuable, because flamers read, reply, preview, respond, etc.--much more banner-spewage than mere "readers" would generate.

    Or, you could "go playground" on the flamers--"You're all just jealous." (Of what? Never mind that.)--because it's easy. In fact, there are a lot people of whom Slashies could be accused of being "jealous" in the "I could do that" way that you describe: Bezos, Jobs, etc.--sometimes even Gates. They did things a lot of us could do, but haven't, and they're rich, and we're mostly not. Likewise, we flamers might be ticked off because Katz just babbles here semi-coherently, much like the rest of us--but--he gets paid for it. And he's not even as good at it as /.'s better trolls, who are just screwing around here, having a laugh. But that's not it. We're not envious of Bezos, Gates, Katz; we're just bored with their crappy-ass crap, and wouldn't mind seeing someone else's once in awhile. This seems obvious to me, but--

    But, since you used an analogy in your post, you got modded up. Same way Katz got his job--compare things at random, based on your playground-level reaction, with which many, of course, agree, becuase it's "'obvious.'" Your "hula hoop envy" would be what we Katz-flamers call a crappy-ass crappy analogy. Makes you feel smart--after all, you've made an "observation," and it was "''obvious'" enough that you've been congratulated for it--but it doesn't really tell us anything (unless "I have made an observation" is what you're really trying to tell us), and it doesn't give us anything to talk about except how crappy that analogy was.

    Just like a little tiny Katzicle. Kind of like this Printing Press:Renaissance::Internet:Now Katzicle we're flaming now, in fact.

    Etc, etc, Plz die now, tech-savvy Luddites, et cetera.

  • Although I'm not familiar with Johnson's scholarship, as someone who studies mostly medieval history, I'm naturally skeptical of claims about how great the Renaissance was. Like everything else, the periodization is problematic (did it start in Gutenberg in the mid-1400s, or with Petrarch in 1370s, or with Dante in 1320s, or...), and part of that has to do with a geographic split -- things that we associate with "Renaissance" happened in the North later and in different ways than in Italy.

    But if you're going to stick with a one-period Renaissance, you should also pay attention to the Carolingian Renaissance or the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century [amazon.com] -- both periods in which we're discovering powerful intellectual advances. In general, most people have dismissed Europe prior to the printing press as a pure backwater and Dark Ages -- but this doesn't wash with the developments spurred by Greek and Arabic knowledge filtering back to the West, in logic with Abelard in the 12th century and in physics continuing with Grosseteste and Bacon to Bradwardine in the 14th century. A number of people have argued that the ongoing Commercial Revolution helped spur a more exact and mathematical view of the world. Even if art's what you want, the development of perspective by Giotto and Cimabue came way before the 15th century. Margaret Wertheim's Pearly Gates of Cyberspace [amazon.com], which Katz liked [slashdot.org], has a lot to say about perspective.

    Besides, if you're looking for the cultural impact of technology, why restrict your focus to the Renaissance? Some of the most important technologies were introduced to Europe centuries earlier, such as the watermill (which was around in late Rome), the stirrup (which enabled shock combat on horseback), the heavy plow (which enabled the tilling of the fertile northern soils), the new horse collar (which allowed horses to pull the plows without choking to death), and the three-field system of planting beans to replenish the soil (which increased the food supply by half, added protein to the diet of the poor and resulted in an immense expansion of European population). All of these had vast social consequences -- not perhaps as culturally sexy as the printing press or Michelangelo, but with far greater impact on people's lives. Personally, I'd rather that the Net's effects be more like the former than the latter.

    If you're interested in the subject of medieval learning, math and technology, I'd recommend Alexander Murray's Reason and Society in the Middle Ages [amazon.com] and Lynn White's Medieval Technology and Social Change [amazon.com] -- although the latter has come under fire for White's tendency to worship the stirrup. I've also heard good things about Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine [amazon.com], although I haven't read it.

  • I was under the impression, that what really fueled and financed the Renaissance was the Plague. It wiped out such a huge number of people, that it rapidly eliminated overcrowding in the cities and allowed for unparalleled social mobility at the time due to the massive underemployment. It allowed the growth of the skilled middle class and craft guilds. This is related to technology, but the main reason for the Renaissance prosperity was that people were allowed to achieve positions of prominence and importance due to their abilities and not their parentage. When the population has been so gravely reduced, positions of responsibility and power fall on those who rise to the occassion. This results in the technological growth. It is the reason the United States rose to such great prosperity (we were a frontier country in which people rose to power by their own work and ingenuity, and why were are helped by the influx of plucky immigrants). Such a phenomenon is certainly seem in the Roman Empire. When an Emperor left the throne to his son the Empire decayed (e.g. Caligula, Commodus, et al.), and when it was given to a nominated successor, the Empire prospered (Trajan, Hadrian, et al.).

  • I'm sick of seeing things written about the Rennaissance as a spontaneous or instant emergence from the Dark Ages. There were at least two other "rennaissances" prior to the Italian Rennaissance of the 15th through 17th centuries.

    The first of those other Rennaissances, under Charlemagne, began with the rediscovery of crop rotation, bringing about enough food surplus to let the population thrive rather than live perpetually on the edge of starvation. This allowed Charlemagne to establish schools throughout his dominions, in which lay the roots of what would become the Universities of the future.

    The second began in the 11th or 12th century, as the rediscovery and profusion of many extant classical sources [including those which came from the Muslim world] led to the "Humanist" rennaissance, reawakening interest in the earthly state of existence and its exigencies in the nascent University communities.

    The third, as Italian city-states became filled with educated lawmakers, was less a new direction than a fruition of the previous six centuries. The Rennaissance was not a grand new profusion of technology, but an ideological state in which technology could give fruit to a reborn Europe-wide civic culture.

    As far as technology goes, it wasn't stagnant from the fall of Rome to the Rennaissance. Water power was harnessed in new ways to drive mills, hammers, and clocks. Masonry and carpentry were refined, as were agricultural techniques several times over [2-crop to 3-crop rotation].

    For technology, the Romans made only three contributions over their thousand-year history: the arch, concrete, and the crane. Their record on the development of technology was far worse than that of Europe over the thousand years that followed their fall.

    Larsal

  • "Luddites" is a frequently-misused term that is also being misused by Katz here:
    Antitechnologists, academic and other snoots, and neo-Luddites equate technology with the erosion of culture and civilization.

    In the same way that slashdotters roll their eyes and grumble when the media misuse the term "hacker," people who know anything about the original luddites, or who participate in the radical critique of technology, cringe at the straw-man oversimplification "Luddite."

    Many of today's "luddites" would say, for instance, that "culture and civilization" are of course promoted and assisted by technology. But they would argue that culture and civilization are being advanced at the expense of people, families, and human values.

    Technology and civilization gave us the printing press, but they also gave us the practices of agriculture and urban living that unleashed smallpox and the black plague. A one-sided account of the effects of technology and civilization is a dishonest account.
    ---

  • (maybe it's off-topic, maybe not - Mod only knows)

    At any rate, the reason the Roman Empire didn't last is they were afraid of change. Comparison of the Eastern Empire to the Western Empire (ie Byzantium to 'Rome') shows that the West began to fall almost immediatly, with everything but the city itself crumbling. The Eastern Empire, long considered to be effeminite and wussy, in fact managed to grow considerably due to trade (which was a very un-Roman way to make a living) and innovation (eg "greek fire"). Most likely the Eastern Empire would have "made it" had not the Persians to the south suddenly converted from Zorastorianism to Islam and become twice as fierce as they had been.

    BUT, the point is, the West fell because it feared change, and that is what prevails today in the form of Neo-luddites et al. So, are you a successful, effeminite Greek emptoros, or a failing, masculine ROMAN serf? I assure you, to the Ancient world, that was the choice. Read the books, esp. Petronius, Horace, Catullus, and Ovid.

  • The Renaissance begins in 1453, when Ottoman cannons knocked down the walls of Constantinople, destroying the last remnant of the Roman Empire. The Era of "gunpowder empires" begins, in China (the Ming), the Middle East, all North Asia, the Moghuls in India, and the Europeans everywhere.

    Big political units go hand in hand with cultural progress. Easy to see here on the Rhein, where hundred of castles were blown by kings impatient with local warlords.

    The EU and the WTO are really a continuation of this trend.

  • Paul Johnson has a point, mainly that technology was indispensible to the Renaissance. But neither he nor Katz should overstate its role in what was primarily and intellectual movement. The main driving factors behind the Renaissance were a rediscovery of the virtues classical (Greek and Roman) literature and architecture, which combined with a rising Italian elite that looked for an aesthetic other than Gothic medievalism to wrap themselves in. Also central to the Renaissance was a lessening of the role of religion in thought and a rise in secularism, focusing on the individual being and how it is that unit, not God, that drives a person's destiny.

    Tech then, as now, serves as a tool for a pre-existing movement, not as its catalyst. And there will be no Renaissance today without a corresponding intellectual movement that can use tech. I highly doubt that tech itself will spawn anything, not on its own.

    You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

  • To run the parallel:

    First the Italian mercantile culture spawned high-art as well as trade, but the art stayed with the midaeval religious themes (blending in the rediscovered Roman antiquities). Then the printing press brought on the Reformation and Enlightenment, and the end of intensely religious themes (the Passion, the Virgin, martyrdom in general) as the center of visual and aural art.

    Now the industrial revolution spawned pop-art as well as manufacture and trade, but the pop-art stayed on 18th and 19th century themes (family values, action-adventure quests, bringing civilization and political correctness to the 'inferior' cultures, progress through the conquest of nature). Then the Internet came and the dominant themes of our dominant arts changed to ... what?

  • Its just as dangerous to worship tech as it is fear it.

    The real question when you look at technology has to be if the current culture is capable of understanding it(technologically, economically, historically, ethically, and morally) and therefore aware of how it could be used for bad and when people are making false claims of its use. When you look at Genetically Modified Oraganisms we something even more dangerous happening. We see a government, the US, not informing its people that they are eating GMOs. The US government assumes that the food is safe but has done no studies to prove or disprove this. They are also making blind claims of ecosystem safety but have done no tests or studies. These are the kind of arrogent actions we can see from history that lead to very undesirable results. Think of DDT. The government promised it was safe, and strayed it everywhere. Later we come to find DDT moving up the food chain and in higher and higher concentrations. In Eagle's it causes the shells to be thin and the eggs die. That lead to the near extinction of the Bald Eagle.

    Or think Agent Orange.

    Appearantly we have not learned any lessons and are throwing caution to the wind in the name of profit.

    Its like we are freaking Feringi.
  • The Western Roman Empire fell circa 476 AD not just because of Black Death, but military dissention, bureaucratic mismanagement, and the Germanic tribes' constant attacks.

    My hog-fscking opinion for what it's worth: Technology languished for ~800 years due to the refusal to propagate knowledge by the Church of Rome and the Royalty. Note that the only scholars of the time were monks and very-high-ranking officials.

    The less the peasants know, the more loyal they will remain to us.

    Imagine if you will, what would have happened if Marxism was thought up between 500-1500 AD. It'd probably make the Peasant's Revolt look like a bar fight.
    Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
  • He's a British historian who is frequently known as 'Bonkers' Johnson due to the often mad views expressed in his Daily Mail weekly column which takes an extreme Thatcherite view.

    His writing style is good but he should be taken with a large pinch of salt as he has gone from being a left winger in the 1960s and 70s (He used to edit the New Statesman which is the socialist's weekly magazine) to an ultra right wing conservative in the 80's and 90's (worships Magaret Thatcher).

    He wrote a book published in 1994 called 'Intellectuals' where he looked at the personal lives of Rosseau, Marx, Satre, Tolstoy and showed them up as hypocrites. However he too was guilty of the crime as he preached on about family values in his newspaper columns and was found to be paying prostitutes so he could spank them.
  • First, I'd like to say I agree a great deal with what DeanC above wrote. And then I'd like to kick in a few more things to put a brand new spin on what he said.

    The simultaneous Reconquista of Spain from the Muslims allowed muslim texts and knowledge to flow into Europe while the fall of Constantinople send fleeing intellectuals from the Byzantine Empire into the much more intellectually backwards Western Europe.

    For these to happen, cultures had to be willing to deal with new ideas, either in sending them to other parts of the world, or receiving them. If Western Europe didn't receive either the Muslim texts, or the talent from the Byzantine Empire, then there might have been no spark, and the Renaissance might not have happened.

    Keep in mind those factors: available information, available talent, and let me add in a third element -- willingness to try new things.

    Today, if there's a renaissance going on, I dare say it's not in the United States. There may have been a small one which resulted in the Internet becoming a Big Thing, but it didn't go anywhere. Most companies can't think of it as anything more than a business tool or threat to intellectual property.

    The US and many advanced nations are contributing to a potential renaissance by posting information over sources like the Internet. But that's not where the most growth is happening.

    Consider India, for instance, which boasts the first companies to successfully implement the CMM Level 5 (a yawner of an accomplishment if you're not big on software process improvement, but who knows what they could grow into?). Consider numerous backwater nations, using information on the web to implement new (to them) techniques for doing things and improving the quality of life.

    And consider that a 'renaissance' doesn't have to be artistic, scientific, or technical. New ideas can fit into any sphere. The social, for instance: striking new policies in human rights and/or sexuality, anyone?

    Before the Italians had all the tools they needed to build their own renaissance, they probably didn't think anything so historically striking would ever happen to them. Likewise, we can't be sure when or where the next Big Thing will spark a reformation. Or which area of life it will affect. Only history can tell that for sure.


    ---
  • We all know it's 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101...
  • I think it stems from jealousy. Its like the guy who invented the hula hoop. Its pretty damn simple, didn't exactly take an engineer to design, yet no one had done it before. Since it was successful it pissed people off because they could well have thought of it themselves.

    This is why people get upset with Katz, he makes a lot of 'obvious' observations. He might not even be the first person do make them, he just recognizes their importance.

  • Re:How original... (Score:3)

    by Eccles ( 932 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @09:28AM (#1860851) Journal
    Yet another book about how the printing press sparked the rennaisance, how original.

    The iron plow was probably at least as important.

    The Roman scratch plow didn't make deep furrows, so planting had to wait until the weather was warmer and frost wouldn't kill the seedlings as often. With the iron plow (which itself was possible thanks to the metallurgical improvements made in the quest for better armor), farmers could be more productive and fewer farmers were needed. So more people were able to do non-farming things, including inventing the printing press.

  • Books 500 years from now? (Score:3)

    by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @11:14AM (#1860852) Journal
    If the historians 500 years from now are writing anything resembling the modern book, I'll be quite surprised* [slashdot.org].

    * (er, well, depending on your views of theology and/or nanotech life extension, I'll probably actually be dead, and if I'm not dead, then probably there will have been enough big surprises that this one won't jump way out of the pack, plus I'll have had 500 years of watching the evolution of communications, but nonetheless, I certainly don't expect now that what historians will be doing 500 years from now will necessarily resemble current books.)

  • There are other more important lessons (Score:3)

    by matthew_gream ( 113862 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @08:38AM (#1860853) Homepage
    The criticism levelled against Katz is partially deserved, and partially not. It is fairly obvious to most intelligent people that there are similarities between the development of writing and the development of computing. Both provided humanity with greater freedom of expression, all of which gave rise to phenomenal changes in the world landscape.

    Katz could discuss more pertinent issues such as how precisely can we learn from the renaissance, other than realising that what is happening now is approximately similar.

    Also, reading up on the Medici family and the history of Florence, one would realise that a large reason for the flowering of arts was due to the patronage of the ruling families (Cosimo I and Lorenzo). Now if the present day wealth of the United States is squandered away, then humanity won't be left with great things, but will be squandered on suburban acreage.

  • Improved eyesight important (Score:3)

    by ciaohound ( 118419 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @07:39AM (#1860854)
    It's well-known that the invention of eyeglasses in Florence greatly improved worker productivity. I wonder what future historians will say about lasik, which seems to be very popular with people in information technology.

    --

  • Technology isnt everything - competition drives (Score:3)

    by idot ( 130605 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @08:14AM (#1860855)
    The chinese had the movable letter printing technique and the paper technique for maybe 500 years before the europeans invented it. Still, it did not lead to this takeoff of culture, the explosion of scientific breakthroughs etc.

    Technology is shurely a conditio sine qua no, however a second important point is the climate of competition which reigned in europe from these days on. Contrary to China, europe and especially Italy at that time was shattered to small independent states each competing for advances in whealth, culture etc. After the loss of the churches position as the guardian of truth, the influx of the arabian knowledge together with the newly found technology of books enabled the dissemination of the newly found empirical insights and their discussion throughout europe (italy). This europe-wide discussion was facilitated by the common scientific language latin.

    The important point was, that whenever the scientist or artist had a problem with the local authority, he could leave and find a different state in which he could complete his work, because a higher central political authority was largely absent (the church however was still there).

    I forgot from which book I took this.

  • The Middle Ages weren't the Dark Ages (Score:3)

    by bfinuc ( 162950 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @11:44AM (#1860856) Homepage Journal
    The Roman Empire fell in the West about 500 AD (probably because of the Black Death). The Dark Ages followed, but after say 1066 Europe entered an era of unprecedented economic growth and technological development.

    Contrary to popular belief, European civilisation was vastly farther in 1200 than in say 300. The Romans didn't even have real plows, let alone stirrups, wind and (good) watermills, buttons, and more other basic technologies than are worth mentioning here.

    The next crash came in 1348 (the Black Death again). The Renaissance didn't come from nowhere, it was solidly based on three thousand years of steady European growth.

    Obviously the Roman Empire was a high point, but just as an example, Slavic Celtic and Germanic languages (including the ancestors of English) begin being written in the late ages of Rome. The rest is history.

  • Worldly Goods (Score:3)

    by drooling-dog ( 189103 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @08:33AM (#1860857)
    Another good read in this regard is Lisa Jardine's Worldly Goods - A New History of the Renaissance (1996). She traces the origins of the renaissance not to any single technological development (like the printing press), but to the spread of commerce and the resulting rise of a mercantile class. The new demand for works of art - and, to a large extent, books - was driven by the need to gain social status by exhibiting one's wealth. Much like today!

  • Re:This is NOT the Renaissance (Score:3)

    by Actinophrys ( 225053 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @09:18AM (#1860858)
    Even more importantly, renaissance refers to a rebirth of learning. At the time, most people felt they weren't doing anything new, just rediscovering what the ancients had (it took people a while to realize it once they started surpassing them).
    I don't think Rome had anything like the technology we have now...

  • This is NOT the Renaissance (Score:3)

    by grovertime ( 237798 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @07:43AM (#1860859) Homepage
    Sometimes unwittingly, "The Renaissance" connects the flowering of that period with the extraordinary outpouring of ideas, stories and culture made possible by the invention of the Net and the Web. Future historians may be writing about the history of this period in much the way Johnson takes on that one.

    While I appreciate Johnson's writing, and his notions are told in a lucid, authoritative and often times clever manner, to assume this conclusion from the text and indeed from the time would be off-base. I don't like the music of the 50s or 80s much, but I'm not yet prepared to say that the Internet Generation was sparked from the rubble of a "Dark Ages"-type time. The pre-computer era was one of the most technologically imaginitive in our history and if we truly are too get a glimpse into where we are headed, maybe we should tell the events of the past with greater accuracy.

    1. humor for the clinically insane [mikegallay.com]

  • So what? (Score:3)

    by Rage_Matrix ( 261973 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @07:48AM (#1860860) Homepage
    Why is there all this Katz bashing here? Okay, so you might not agree with what the guy is saying and stuff, but honestly, so what? At least Katz is contributing something. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I find "Katz articles" very entertaining. If you've got something better/more intelligent/whatever, then write in instead. Jeez...

  • How original... (Score:4)

    by joshv ( 13017 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @07:46AM (#1860861)
    Yet another book about how the printing press sparked the rennaisance, how original. This seems a rather pedestrian and obvious observation, that I am sure has been written about ad nauseum - do we really need another book about it.

    Oh, and Katz really shows me his insight with the little teaser 'perhaps someday someone will write the same of our time...' Wow, Katz's mind just makes all these cool little connections I would never see on my own... Now I know why I continue to masochistically read every one of his articles.

    -josh

  • I hate to jump on the "Katz Sucks" bandwagon, but I have got to ask this. Why does everything revolve around the Internet or "new technology" when it comes to Katz?

    (In a way, sounds like the Net's early architecture.)
    OK, now, I understand drawing some parrallel conclusions, but I really, seriously doubt that anyone writing a book about the classical Renaissance is trying to go out of their way to justify the current Internet revolution through the "hindsight of the classical period". I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem that way to me.

    While I agree that we should always strive to remember the lessons of the past, I ask that we have the right to draw our own conclusions. Jon Katz reviews a book, and he tells us what we are supposed to take out of it. I thought it was the job of the reviewer to say whether ( in the case of an historical book) the author has managed to cover the subject matter well, not to try and tell the reader how to read the book, or what conclusions to draw.

    Is Katz really this entrenched in the technology sector? I mean, surely no one can truly be that one dimensional. Yes, I want to learn the lessons of the past, but when I read about the history of the Greek or Roman empires, I do not go out of my way to try and link that history with anything that I am currently working on. It just seems daft to assume that whatever you are working on is automatically to be considered as important, in an historical context, as something as big and powerful (at the time) as the Roman Empire, or the Renaissance and the intellectual revolution that evolved from it.

    It is possible that we are in such a time. But we have a long way to go before we can say that all humanity will benifit from this whole Internet thing in the same way all humanity benifited from that time. And frankly, I'm not real interested in having all of my history lessons applied to the Internet. There are other things happening in the world, even now, that aren't directly tied up in the Internet. Perhaps Katz should step away from his job for a while and check some of those things out? Just a suggestion. A vacation never hurt anybody.

  • Printing Press Did Not Bring About Renaissance (Score:5)

    by heinzkeinz ( 18262 ) on Monday December 11, 2000 @07:53AM (#1860863) Homepage
    I haven't read the book, but I can tell you for certain that the printing press was not the major cause of the Renaissance. I don't know if this is a distortion of Johnson's words by Katz, or a gross error by the author, but the Renaissance (as conventionally defined) predated the printing press by at least a hundred years.

    Gutenberg produced the first Bible c. 1455, but the Italian Renaissance was in full swing by then, largely an outcome of the mercantile culture of the Italian city-states. The later European Renaissance movements were more outgrowths of the Italian one than spawned by the printing press. They too seem to have been caused mostly by the growth of town culture and the rise of the middle class.

    A solid argument can be made for the printing press as the greatest single cause for the Reformation. However, it is incorrect to name it as the primary cause of the Renaissance. I'm not saying that it had no effect, but other factors were at play.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close