What do you think?
Rate this book
Origins of the Medieval World
paperback.
176 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1958
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 19, 2012
A stimulating introduction to the rise of the medieval world. The collapse of the Roman Empire was indicated, among other things, by high taxes, monetary debasement, a refusal to work requiring a continuing supply of slave labor, limitation of technological advancement because it would produce "unemployment", and the overall attempt to provide national unity by political action.
What replaced the failed Empire was a system that gave relatively more freedom, especially as Christianity became the dominating influence. Under this influence, there was an encouragement to replace war and fighting with productive work, resulting in an economic improvement unknown in the Empire.
Carroll Bark's book is an attempt to redress the idea that "classical" civilization was superior to medieval "barbarism", and what he displays is an age that is not so "dark" after all.
What replaced the failed Empire was a system that gave relatively more freedom, especially as Christianity became the dominating influence. Under this influence, there was an encouragement to replace war and fighting with productive work, resulting in an economic improvement unknown in the Empire.
Carroll Bark's book is an attempt to redress the idea that "classical" civilization was superior to medieval "barbarism", and what he displays is an age that is not so "dark" after all.
April 14, 2020
This is more of a 3.5 but i bumped it up cuz i felt like a lot of info was packed into a very accessible read for somebody who’s not familiar with medievalists’ raging historiographical debates lol. The foreground for barks argument was convincing - since he spends the most time discussing this - that the transitional period from the end of the unified Roman Empire to the vague start of the Middle Ages did signify a *break* in culture and technology and society, but also that this wasn’t a “bad” thing. Then the argument becomes more tenuous because the book ends - that this break from antiquity, created a people of such at once material desperation and also flexibility and ingenuity (in addition and not as opposed to the traditional medieval associated characteristics of superstition and illiteracy) as to be a carte blanche, laid fertile ground for the development of Western European civilization, AKA the apex of modern human development. feels deterministic without further elaboration. As in I’d like to see his fully fleshed out argument that the unique conditions of medieval Europe led to these values and ideas and institutions that are uniquely, wonderfully Western European (which I’m sure he might be able to argue very well, just not in the space of this book alone. It feels in that way like a volume I of a multi volume series). Anyway this book was written in 1957 so i guess we can excuse the zealous optimism as of his time
July 10, 2016
It was such a relief to read this book after giving up on two really long ones. It was not because it was so short (112 pages), though that helped. It was because it was written with clarity. I was starting to be afraid that the problem was with me rather than just a bad coincidence on hitting two books I found unreadable at the same time.
Bark is first of all arguing with Henri Pirenne's belief that it was the Muslim invasions that brought on the end of the classical world and the beginning of the medieval. He believes that it starts earlier. He quotes Michael Rostovtzeff: "[that in the Decay] of ancient civilization" the emphasis must be on "ancient" and not on "civilization." The roots were already there.
He makes an interesting analogy between the West and Byzantium on one hand and Athens and Sparta on the other. One was hide-bound, stratified (Byzantium) while the other had the potential for change.
Bark is first of all arguing with Henri Pirenne's belief that it was the Muslim invasions that brought on the end of the classical world and the beginning of the medieval. He believes that it starts earlier. He quotes Michael Rostovtzeff: "[that in the Decay] of ancient civilization" the emphasis must be on "ancient" and not on "civilization." The roots were already there.
He makes an interesting analogy between the West and Byzantium on one hand and Athens and Sparta on the other. One was hide-bound, stratified (Byzantium) while the other had the potential for change.
October 19, 2020
Bark argued that the decline of the Western Roman Empire heralded not a Dark Age but a period of practical adjustment and experimentation taking place within a framework of new ethical and social principles embodied in the Christian Church. He also argued that the beginnings of this adjustment can be traced back to at least the year 300 Common Era, not to the 8th-century disruption of the Muslim expansion as claimed by Henri Pirenne. It's incisive, bracing, clear, succinct (arguably brief enough to call for more supporting evidence at times), and surprisingly accessible for an academic book.
Bark concluded that the essential key to understanding the growth of a new civilization in the West was a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances — to learn what of the new to accept and what of the old to discard — while keeping firmly fixed on the principles of human dignity and freedom. One wonders how the Western world of 2020 measures up against that standard.
This was a pioneering attempt to overturn the impression of a period of several hundred years of ignorance and clerical oppression. The effort apparently continues. The Oct. 10-16, 2020 edition of The Economist has a review of a new book titled The Light Ages, which apparently reiterates Bark's argument, although using evidence of scientific and technological advances from a somewhat later time in what is generally regarded as the medieval era.
Bark sounds like a mid-1950s American liberal but not a naive one. He said the people of Western Europe adapted to the collapse of classical civilization when Rome reached a dead end and they had little choice. His caution about the difficulty of coping with change may apply universally but certainly sounds relevant to the province of Alberta in 2020: "Most men in all ages, and very likely more in times of turmoil than in times of stability, cling staunchly and blindly to the familiar and accepted, avoiding the cold discomfort of mental and spiritual readjustment."
Bark concluded that the essential key to understanding the growth of a new civilization in the West was a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances — to learn what of the new to accept and what of the old to discard — while keeping firmly fixed on the principles of human dignity and freedom. One wonders how the Western world of 2020 measures up against that standard.
This was a pioneering attempt to overturn the impression of a period of several hundred years of ignorance and clerical oppression. The effort apparently continues. The Oct. 10-16, 2020 edition of The Economist has a review of a new book titled The Light Ages, which apparently reiterates Bark's argument, although using evidence of scientific and technological advances from a somewhat later time in what is generally regarded as the medieval era.
Bark sounds like a mid-1950s American liberal but not a naive one. He said the people of Western Europe adapted to the collapse of classical civilization when Rome reached a dead end and they had little choice. His caution about the difficulty of coping with change may apply universally but certainly sounds relevant to the province of Alberta in 2020: "Most men in all ages, and very likely more in times of turmoil than in times of stability, cling staunchly and blindly to the familiar and accepted, avoiding the cold discomfort of mental and spiritual readjustment."
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews