I'm curious where you got those two opinions. I don't think you can describe a period of 500 years in black or white, any more than you can use godd or bad to describe the first 500 years here since Columbus landed. There was much horror, war, injustice, indeed dark times in the Middle ages, much of it caused by the Church, but it was also a time in which new thoughts and ideas provided the base for the later Renaissance. (oh and btw, those lovely cathedrals were built on the backs of the peasants. They had more to do with the power of the church then they did the good of the people)

However - histories: A World Lit only by Fire by Wm Manchester is a great place to start. It is a very readable look at the latter middle ages going into the Renaissance. Another book is Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman, which gives you again a very readable look at the 14th century Europe. Also, anything by Frances and Joseph Geis will give you a wonderful introduction to the history and the culture of the time.

Some fiction might help as well. Sharon Kay Penman writes well researched historical fiction. Start with Here Be Dragons and continue through the trilogy, or read her medieval mysteries. Speaking of, Caedfael is about a monk in the early middle ages who solves many mysteries. Again, its a wonderful introduction to the times. Judith Tarr Queen of Swords looks at the crusades from the eyes of those living in the holy land (with some great scenes of Eleanor of Aquitane leading the troops to battle)

Finally Bernard Cornwell has several books that take place in the time period, also very well researched.

For fiction, I would recommend the trilogy: "Kristin Lavransdatter" by Sigrid Undset. Set in Medieval Norway, it has a lot of interesting detail about how people lived and thought and worshipped. I think Undset was very accurate in her research before writing this.

As for the duality you mention, I think that argument can be made for almost any time frame in human history.

It is my understanding that the older term "The Dark Ages" has been recently discarded, since there were so many points of light, in different arenas. It also depends upon what discipline you are coming from -- art historians are told that at that time all art was the "handmaiden of the Church."

Cindy, thanks for you input.
As a matter of fact, I just finished reading Manchester's A World Lit Only by Fire and found it engrossing and informative. However, it painted a gruesome picture of the lives of the common people and the Church (both Catholic and, after Luther, Protestant). On the other hand, a book by Regine Pernoud called Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myth, takes a different stance. This book holds that both scholars of history and the "man in the street" have the wrong idea about this period. It occurred to me to wonder how there could be such different views of the same time.
Actually, it was more like 1000 years (500 to cir. 1500 AD) which were discussed and surely over such a length of time, there were events both good and bad. But how, generally, I wonder, should this period be seen from the perspective of time?
I'll keep your book suggestions in mind as my interest in this age has been piqued.

Woodnymph, yes, both sides agree that the Church was a great supporter of the Arts--painting (mainly religious), architecture (mainly cathedrals). But writers had to be very, very careful what they wrote so as not to be accused of heresy.
And is it true that most of the innovations of the time were related to warfare?

I think most general histories of the middle ages are pretty poor: the era is too long and too diverse geographically to fit into one book. Duby's volume on the middle ages in "The History of Private Life" series isn't bad, but most of the interesting histories of the period I've read have focussed on individual topics. Good luck!

Russ

My Medieval History college professor told us that the Dark Ages were only dark to us, not to the people who lived at the time. He thought the general population was having such a hard time just making a living that education fell by the wayside and not much was written down, or at least has survived.

The building of the cathedrals that lasted over many, many years provided labor and income for the peasants during the winter seasons when they couldn't farm. Read The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett.

>It occurred to me to wonder how there could be such different views of the same time.

The same way that two people will look at exactly the same event and see it differently. I have not read the other you referred to, may need to check it out to see how it gells with what else I have read.

>But how, generally, I wonder, should this period be seen from the perspective of time?

They cant. The most you could probably say is that the time period provided much of the basis to great discoveres as well as ongoing tensions that took place during the Ren.

If we are including the so called Dark Ages (and I agree that its a misnomer) then we are talking 1000 years, and you just can't make many generalizations from it. However - reading Manchester, I think his view of how the mass of the population lived is probably correct. Certainly the artisans, barony and church folk lived much better. Not much different now, ya know? There are still places in our country that are hell holes. And the gap between the richest and poorest gets bigger every year. I suspect it wasn't much different then.

Oh, BTW, during the European Middle Ages, the Arab empire was in its heyday (around 800 AD), the Mayas of South America were at the top of their game (900-1400 AD), and in many ways the Byzantine Empire had a better standard of living, during the same time (read Judith Tarr Queen of Swords) So you have to decide what Middle Ages are you looking at. (after I finish a book about time period I will sometimes go to my Timetables of History to see what else was happening around the world. Very eye opening)

Carolyn, I agree (I loved Pillars of Earth) but when you look at how glorious those cathedrals were decorated (and I for one love going and being at a loss for words at the glory of craftsmanship), I immediately think of how much better life would have been if this money was spent on the populace. And then I look at the display before me and realize that its so gorgeous I couldn't imagine not having that in the world)

>And is it true that most of the innovations of the time were related to warfare?

Most are, to begin with. Many of our medical advances started from taking care of WWI soldiers.

For a good, even-handed description of the middle ages, try Jill Claster's The Medieval Experience, 300-1400. It's comprehensive and addresses the new/old views of the times. The Manchester book was one of the most compulsively readable popular histories I've ever read and I do recommend you try it, but I was distressed by a timeline in the front of the book that provided specific years for the deaths of Arthur and Robin Hood, without ever even hinting at the controversies of associating the legends with the specific persons he used for his dates. He scarcely mentioned Charlemagne, and his view of the middle ages seemed unrelentingly bleak.

On technology, try Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel - that may have been a Gies book, but I'm too lazy to go look it up. :)

Another good one for seeing everyday life of the middle ages is Montaillou:The Promised Land of Error, by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, a scholarly exposition which uses the notes from a series of Cathar heretic trials of a single village in 1300. Someone here at RP recommended this one, and I thank whoever it was!

For fiction, try to find Maurice Druon's Accursed Kings series, starting with The Iron King about Phillippe the Fair. Some of the best historical fiction written!

cheryl

Yes, but, Cindy, do you think the money saved by not building cathedrals would have been spent on the populace? Is it now? Was it ever?

carolyn-I agree...if we took all the $$ spent around the world on military needs and rechanneled it, imagine how far the standard of living would rise world-wide. But I don't see it happening until we get some very angry mothers and grandmothers and sisters and aunts in charge of things.

Speaking of money/taxing your populace, I was appalled to learn just how much the ransom was for Richard I:

(From Wikipedia)
His mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, worked to raise the ransom of 150,000 marks (perhaps five times the annual income for the English Crown under Richard) demanded by Henry [Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor]. Both clergy and laymen were taxed for a quarter of the value of their property, the gold and silver treasures of the churches were confiscated, and money was raised from the scutage and the carucage taxes. The emperor demanded that 100,000 marks be delivered to him before he would release the king, the same amount raised by the Saladin tithe only a few years earlier. At the same time, John, Richard's brother, and King Philip of France offered 80,000 marks for the Emperor to hold Richard prisoner until Michaelmas 1194. The emperor turned down the offer. The money to rescue the King was transferred to Germany by the emperor's ambassadors, but "at the king's peril" (had it been lost along the way, Richard would have been held responsible), and finally, on 4 February 1194 Richard was released.

Makes you wonder what course history might have taken if they hadn't paid all that money for Richard's return.

Donamira, it was I who recommended the Montaillou book. I forgot to mention it here, but it is incomparable, for pertinent detail of the period in France.

I agree with Cindy that this period was a high point in the history of the Arabs. The Muslim peoples were copying and saving the writings and discoveries and literature of the ancient Greeks. But for this fact, we would not have this knowledge today.

I also agree that there were bright points of light in the Middle Ages which paved the way for the later discoveries of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Charlemagne and his schools was such a one and I dare say that King Alfred the Great in southern England was another....

As for spending the money on cathedrals rather than help for the poor, I could not agree more. However, I think an argument could be made for the "spiritual food" that the cathedrals provided for the Common Man, in terms of their sheer beauty and inspiration....

I'm no expert in the Medieval period although I 'did' history at college and am not familiar with the books you mention but I think the power of the Church cannot be underestimated.

Except for Kings, Emperors and other Top Rulers the Church held total sway over the 'ordinary' folk. Many clerics were Prince-Bishops in their own right or were closely related to Royalty.
The clergy were generally the only people able to read and write and even lawyers were priests in Minor Orders. Fear of Damnation must have been a powerful tool in the hands of the clergy and superstitious peasants would have believed everything they were told about Heaven and Hell and the Dreadful Day of Judgement.

Virtually all the history of that vast span of time has come down to us in Britain through the writings of priest-scholars, going back to the days of Bede writing about the invasions of the Anglo-Saxons, and then, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles telling the tales of Viking raids on the country.
More priestly clerks travelled throughout the land compiling in Norman French, what would become the Domesday Book.
The peasants, who lived very basic hand-to-mouth lives must have been amazed and over-awed when they looked out of their simple mud and wood huts to see huge castles, abbeys and cathedrals going up around the country.
What little we know of their lives has come down to us through the various manuscripts of manorial courts/tithe rolls etc.
The only way 'up' for these peasants was either to fight for their lord and maybe win booty on the battlefield or enter the Church either as a monk, or if they were bright as a priest.
Castles were built by the king and his nobles to keep the enemy at bay and show who was boss of an area, while the Church built abbeys and cathedrals ostensibly to the Greater Glory of God, but also at a more mundane level to show the Bishop or Abbot in the next town 'My church is bigger than yours, I have more Holy Relics, more pilgrims visit us, my monks copy more scriptures than yours, we have more sheep, more granges, more men working for us . . . God is on our side." I think this was the way that a 'High UP' in the Church would have plotted his path to Heaven.
I doubt that the average peasant ever went into a cathedral or abbey and probably was quite content to make do with his humble parish or village church.
I read somewhere about Wells Cathedral which has wonderful carvings on the West front walls, that these told Bible stories for the peasants (a book they were forbidden to read even if had they been able to) but only if they had excellent eye-sight.

If only a piece of writing could be found by one of the 'Common Men' telling his side of the story. "Got up, ate a crust of bread, toiled in the fields, came home, ate a bowl of soup . . . beat the wife . . . "

georgia, I doubt if the English would have missed Richard I. I think he only spent a matter of months in his Kingdom, which was ruled while he was away and after...

Actually, England was better off with Eleanor ruling.

>Yes, but, Cindy, do you think the money saved by not building cathedrals would have been spent on the populace? Is it now? Was it ever?

No. No. No. But my point was (I think) that the church often did things for its own glory, not to help its people. And no, organized religious usually doesn't...

>Makes you wonder what course history might have taken if they hadn't paid all that money for Richard's return

John would have been king a few years earlier then planned BTW Sharon Penman does a good job showing some different sides of John in her book Here Be Dragons.

I always thought it would have been fascinating talking to Eleanor. What an amazing woman.

veer, your comments mirror my understanding of the time.

>I read somewhere about Wells Cathedral which has wonderful carvings on the West front walls, that these told Bible stories for the peasants

Ive been there, quite gorgeous. But its not much different from the other cathedrals in that most of the carvings, paintings, and stained glass was designed to teach the peasants the religion. It wasn't till Tynbee (sp) decided to start writing an English Bible (and was killed for his efforts) that the idea of letting the masses read for themselves was even considered (and the church fought long and hard to see that it didn't happen)

BTW, have you ever looked at misericords in major cathedrals? These were wooden carvings placed under the seat so a person could lean against during the long mass. Since the carvings were out of sight, they were usually done by apprentices, and were probably the one part of the church that wasn't religious; in fact many of the carvings were of common every day occurences, or of legends and myths. David and I had a blast exploring them in the cathedrals we visited. Anyway, looking at them gives you some idea of what peasant life was like.

>Charlemagne and his schools was such a one and I dare say that King Alfred the Great in southern England was another....

Id add the Athling, the Norse court and legislature, which was a basis for our own. (by the way, some of the Norse sagas are wonderful reads. I read Njals Saga in college and not only learned about Norse life in the middle ages, but read a really remarkable book at the same time.

Here is a link that might be useful: Misericords

Listen, y'all. With all this deep musing on the Middle Ages, it could be time for a good laugh. Pondering books and Medieval times led me, oddly enough, to do a search on a certain site famous for its many videos. I found one called "Medieval Help Desk." It is hilarious and one a book lover and computer dummy (me) can appreciate. Maybe you will too.

It wasn't till Tynbee (sp) decided to start writing an English Bible (and was killed for his efforts) that the idea of letting the masses read for themselves was even considered (and the church fought long and hard to see that it didn't happen)

You're thinking of Tyndale. He published a New Testament in 1525 in Europe. His isn't the first English translation, though; Wycliffe gets credit for that. Tyndale is the first to translate directly from the Greek, however. As far as the church fighting long and hard against a vernacular Bible, that depends on where you are. Henry VIII put an English Bible in every church (Coverdale's, not Tyndale's, though Tyndale was still alive at the time). English Bibles were common (other than during Mary's brief reign) thereafter, culminating of course in the publication of the King James Bible in 1611. Vernacular bibles were also present in other Protestant areas (Tyndale met with Luther who produced the great German version of the Bible), though in Catholic areas the Bible was still in Latin (not, of course, the original languages) for quite some time.

Russ

froniga, that was posted a while back, and several folks have emailed it to me. I laugh every time - lots of fun (I have a friend who is in IT who says he has clients like that...)

>You're thinking of Tyndale

Hey, I got three letters right! (thank you for the correction and further explanation)

Oops. Sorry I was recommending something you had already seen. That little video made me laugh at a time when I really needed it, having been overwhelmed by the horror coming out of Virginia. Sometimes I think every age of Mankind is a Dark Age in its own way. I guess I'm still a bit depressed by what my TV tells me these days.

Veer, like you, I wish some peasant of those old days had been able to write about his lot in life. But unfortunately, the Church (from what I read) frowned on a literate populace.

If only a piece of writing could be found by one of the 'Common Men' telling his side of the story. "Got up, ate a crust of bread, toiled in the fields, came home, ate a bowl of soup . . . beat the wife . . . " -- Vee

I wish some peasant of those old days had been able to write about his lot in life. -- froniga

Well, I know of one family who were "common" -- the Pastons of Norfolk -- who wrote in their own words about their experiences in the 15th century (from 1420 and into the early 1500s). Frances and Joseph Gies (whom Cindy mentioned above) have extracted the family's letters, wills, and other documents in A Medieval Family: The Pastons of Fifteenth-Century England. Granted, this is late in the period called "The Middle Ages," but it does provide insight into lives of folk who were not commonly represented. The patriarch was a lawyer and judge, and the rest of the family had education -- even some of the women were literate and able to write -- but these people were not directly connected with the church and they weren't nobility.

The Book of Margery Kempe also details the life of a common woman of the late fourteenth century and early fifteenth century. Margery, though she was illiterate herself, dictated her autobiography to an amanuensis. She eventually became a religious mystic but before that she had married, bore fourteen children, and ran a brewery. Memoirs of a Medieval Woman by Louise Collis also recounts Margery's life. Nowadays, Margery would no doubt be considered a fanatic -- and her vow of chastity seems a bit late in the game -- but the documentation of her life is especially interesting and unusual because 1) she was a woman and 2) she wasn't royal.

Anyway, I thought I would mention those books, but I'm like you and would love it if even more ordinary folk had been able to tell their own stories.

I'm another who had read Ladurie's Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Fascinating.

>Sorry I was recommending something you had already seen.

Oh, no apologizes necessary! Like I said, I laugh each time I see it. I needed a laugh today so it all worked out :)

>Margery Kempe

Very interesting story, tho I had many moments when I just wanted to slap her silly...

Oh, someone was asking about travel writing, and two Medieval works dawned on me: Cantebury Tales, and Travels of Marco Polo. Both certainly give you a flavor for the time period, in two different places.

Two collections might intrigue you - Norman Cantor (who has written several books on the subject) wrote Medieval LIves, a collection of first hand writings and pictures of the times. My favorite tho is Medieval Miscelleany by Judith Herrin. A gorgeous book, with paper made to look like vellum, the editor collected first hand accounts of day to day activities of the time through their poems, wills, epitaphs, letters and legal regulations. Her range is huge - 6th to 15th century, but in reading it and looking at it you get a sense of things changing. Looking at it again, I think I may just have to browse through it again.

Some of the art from the Middle Ages is quite revealing as to how the folk, including peasants, lived. For example, the exquisite "Les Tres Riches Heures de duc de Berry." (circa 1412).

"But my point was (I think) that the church often did things for its own glory, not to help its people. And no, organized religious usually doesn't..."

I didn't mean to be saying anything negative about the church. I was thinking of riches in general that don't filter down. I hope the church was aiming for the glory of God, not for its own sake.

I do believe "organized religion" does, and always has done, a great amount of good, e.g., the many soup kitchens and clothing outlets for the less fortunate, as well as overnight facilities for the homeless. In fact, my own church serves hot lunches 365 days a year at no cost to the recipients, although a la Charles Dickens, I believe they have to listen to a sermonette.

Frieda, I have a copy of Blood and Roses by Helen Castor yet another book about the Paston family and their part in the Wars of the Roses. In such small print reading it is almost impossible.
Interesting how they were 'commoners' just by the fact of not being 'Royal' despite being wealthy, educated and well-connected . . .rather like Diana P of W being a 'commoner'. I don't know about the use of the word in the US but to have been considered 'common' in the UK up to a few years ago (not in the Blue Bloodied sense) was the social Kiss of Death. Nearly always used to describe a female (men seldom got tarred with that particular brush) and said under the breath with raised eyebrows, by other women. The happy thing was if you were truly common you didn't care and went about your life doing exactly what you pleased while cocking a snook at your detractors.

In my readings, I always had noted that the Church did a fair amount of good in the Middle Ages, for example, taking in orphans and widows, instructing children,giving shelter to travelers, healing the sick, promoting the arts, etc. Both monasteries and nunneries served as hospitals often, as well as fonts of learning.

In my area, some churches are providing soup kitchens and shelter overnight to the growing numbers of homeless people. Also, often pastoral counseling is given free of charge.

True-the monasteries and convents did offer hospitality to all passers-by, as well as sometimes being the only medical care around...but at the same time, the CHURCH with a capital everything was busy amassing riches in the form of plate, property and cold hard coin. As human nature goes, the spending of such wealth was done at the direction of the Abbot, or Bishop, or Mother Superior-sometimes for the good of the poor, sometimes for the good of the Abbot. Remember many went into the church at this time without a real vocation-first son inherits, second to the army, third to the church was almost the norm in well-born families and those third sons were often loath to give up the "good life"-relatively-speaking- that they had had at home. And those poor unmarried daughters-better to let the convent feed and clothe them if the first son has a wife to run things!!

ccr, you took the words right off my fingertips, Indeed, the local churches are most excellent for helping the local population. I have often worked with one church organization that regularly serves the homeless in our community, and the one temple I frequent has regular food drives. But the CHURCH didn't really care much for the people, it was busy amassing wealth and power. As do the tops of many organizations that are not necessarily religious. (and I know this is starting to get to a slippery slope, and I am not sure I want to slide down it. Instead, a segue into another sidelight of the middle ages)

>And those poor unmarried daughters-better to let the convent feed and clothe them if the first son has a wife to run things!!

An amazing book, non fiction, that covers this very well is Galileo's daughter by Dava Sobel. Well researched and well written, it covers the letters that went between father and daughter after she had been placed (aka forced) into a convent at a very young age. The love they have for each other is palapable, but the times made it necessary for her to stay behind those walls. It also discusses the tug of war between science and religion of the time, which sounds awfully modern. And thinking about weep worthy books - when I got to the end and realized who was buried in Gallileo's tomb in Florence, I cried.

Here is a link that might be useful: Galileo's Daughter: a historical memoir of science, faith and love

I just wanted to mention that the term Dark Ages (though no longer used by historians) referred to the period from the fall of Rome (476 A.D., the death of the last Emperor in the West) to the crowning of Charlemagne (A.D. 800) or shortly after. The period after that was called the the Middle Ages.

The "Dark Ages" was generally characterized by a huge retreat from the world the Romans had created--loss of knowledge, abandoned cites and farmlands, loss of the comfort and elegance that characterized wealthier homes. Remember Roman towns and cities had running water and heat throughout the homes of the wealthy, something it took Europe until the 19th century to have again.

Art, architecture and book learning began to revive under Charlemagne, but many of the classics of Greek and Roman literature remained lost for centuries more.

The period around A.D. 1100 is often called the High Middle Ages or sometimes the French Renaissance of the 12th century.

An interesting series of books dealing with the Reformation in England but written as 'whodunnits' are those by C J Sansom. The first is Dissolution then Dark Fire and last (and still to be read by me) Sovereign.
Recommended by Janalyn (need I say more) they follow a sleuthing lawyer through the dangerous times of the mid 1500's and Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries.
In this case the lawyer is a 'Reformer' glad to see the back of the hypocrisy of the old ways who's ideals gradually change as he witnesses the bloodshed, burnings and brutality between both Catholic and Protestant.
Sansom is a historian turned lawyer so most of his information seems accurate and the stuff about the Law of that period is informative, although I could have done with a map of London in Tudor times showing the great monastic houses, as he gallops between destinations.
The third book is set in York.

And yes, I do realise this is not about the Middle Ages nor about the D*rk Ag*s . . .words I have vowed never to utter on RP since I was mauled, trodden on and spat out while using them some while ago ;-> . . . but history has no neatly drawn lines under each chapter, does it?

Thanks for the suggestion of the Reformation mysteries, veer. They will go on the TBR list. Are these comparable to the Brother Cadfael mysteries? (although not in the same time period, of course)

Interesting that you should mention Cadfael, thyrkas, as I have just picked up from the library Edith Pargeter: Ellis Peters by Margaret Lewis. I'll let you know how it goes.

I haven't read a 'Cadfael' book for many years, but think that probably Sansom's books are more detailed with their description of buildings, streets, explanations of the Law etc. He is not so hot on character development and his plots are not easy to follow once the bodies begin to pile up.
What he does well is give an underlying feeling of fear, uncertainty and even dread during those dangerous times.
I think Ellis Peter's work is perhaps quieter, but then she was writing about a time further back in history and set for the most part in the countryside .. . I know Shrewsbury is/was a town but nothing compared to the London of the sixteenth century.

For books about the Middle Ages, I'd like to mention Feudal Society by Marc Bloch, which I understand was revolutionary for the time but doesn't seem so nowadays. For fiction, there's In a Dark Wood Wandering by Hella Haasse. Also, Einhard's biography of Charlemagne in which, among other things, he writes that the nobles of the court thought Einhard odd for trimming his nails and hair.

Veer, I don't know anything about the disapproval you encountered over the use of the term "Dark Ages" but it seems amazing that it would cause anyone that much distress.

Have we become so "politically correct" that we must take care not to offend those who have been dead for nearly 2000 years? Manchester says in his World Lit only by Fire that "Modern historians have abandoned the phrase, 'Dark Ages'" because it implies a negative judgment of the time. "Yet," he adds, "There are no survivors to be offended." Apparently there must be some survivors :o).

The truth is, it was a time in Europe of relative silence as far as written records are concerned; dark because it is mostly unknown--a prolonged, dim, mysterious phase in European history. I see no problem with the term "Dark Ages" when referring to the early Middle Ages--that time between the light of the ancients (when knowledge was shared by all the known World and gathered in the Great Library of Alexandria) and the dawning of the European Renaissance.

Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, expressed real despair for the destruction of the Alexandrian library (3rd or 4th Century AD?). What part, if any, did this loss have on the darkening of Europe? Indeed, what effect did it have on the world today?

Sagan seems mainly to blame the Church for the ensuing depths of ignorance and suppression of scientific progress. If thinkers were allowed to air freely their beliefs and discoveries, the iron hand of the Church might be weakened. As a result, whatever was written was monitored for any thoughts contrary to the beliefs decreed by the pope (who could not be wrong in any way).

In defense of some associated with the Church, Thomas Cahill contends in his book How the Irish Saved Civilization, that following the fall of Rome, Irish monks, tucked away in an inconspicuous corner of a small island, quietly and conscientiously occupied themselves by copying every book they could get their hands on, thereby preserving many of the ancient works still extant so that when the time came, they were available once more to the World.

It is amazing to consider how events of the past shaped the world of today. How will the actions and choices made today help shape the world of tomorrow? But therein lies a whole other topic.

>"Modern historians have abandoned the phrase, 'Dark Ages'" because it implies a negative judgment of the time.

I don't think its to avoid offending anyone (and veer, I can't imagine anyone over reacting to that, how totally pedantic and silly of them). But the term is a value judgement, a world view that says our age, our time, or the time of our immediate ancestors, was much more civilized, valued, better, and that those before us were cavemen. Using early Middle Ages instead of Dark Ages opens up that time period to more interest, to find that it was not so 'dark', that amazing things were happening then. The term Dark Ages also implies that the whole world was in a Dark Age, when this very time period was considered the time of greatness for the Arabian, Byzanntien, Mayan and Chinese empires. Sometimes changing language changes our persepctive and in this case its a good thing.

froniga, your comments from Sagan and Cahill are very interesting. I remember reading both, and the more I think about it the more I see some truth in both. Certainly the Church censored, banned and outcast many ideas, books and people for what it thought was heretical views, but yes, I'd give them the credit that Cahill does. I suspect, individually, there was much that happened among people that kept the flame of learning burning, even in the darkest places.

Interesting what would have happened if the Church didn't censor - what our world would have become? I am rather frightened what our future will be like based on some actions that have been made recently. But then, people have always said that, and have always been frightened, when the truth is that things change but not always for the worse.

For fiction set in the Middle Ages, I would recommend "The Cloister and the Hearth" by Charles Reade and "Peter Abelard" by Helen Waddell, being the story of the star-crossed lovers, Heloise and Abelard.

Bringing this back up to the top.

Does anyone remember a few years ago (forget how many!)we read for discussion a book entitled Down The Common: A Year in the Life of a Medieval Woman by Ann Baer?

It is a fictional work about a poor rural peasant and her family. I don't remember a lot about it, but do recall how they described how the food was hung to stop the rats from eating it-the mizzen at the bottom of the garden (yuk!) and if I remember correctly about the priest who read the lessons to the congregation from memory-in Latin of course-because he couldn't read.
Also there were descriptions of life in the Hall and how the peasants were helped and or treated by the Lady of the Manor...maybe I will try to find it for a re-read as I recall enjoying it.

Anyone else around at the time and remember reading it?

Pat

Yes, I read "Down The Common." I've read a thousand books since then but I do remember I enjoyed all the description of the times and what it was like then for a woman. What else has she written?