What is "Early-Modern"?
Dan Goodman
Medieval?
Middle-Modern?
Late-Modern -- or does that belong in alt.history.future?
Post-Modern? Note: I've seen a book titled _Postmodernism in the Middle
Ages_, which promises some interesting paradoxes.
Alex
There is no term of "middle-modern". Very roughly, the early modern can
be distinguished from mediaeval Europe by the renaissance and the
reformation. Neither of these are easy to place a date upon. At the
other end, late modern is generally taken to begin somewhere with the
three revolutions of America, France and industry. It's a very
imprecise idea.
Post-modernism is an approach, influenced heavily by literary
criticism. It is not really a chronilogical period. Hence,
post-modernism can be applied to any period; one of my colleagues is an
archaeologist very interested in how post-modern theory can help us
better understand the neolithic.
Cheers, Alex
Joe Bernstein
<rabi...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Very roughly, the early modern can
> be distinguished from mediaeval Europe by the renaissance and the
> reformation. Neither of these are easy to place a date upon. At the
> other end, late modern is generally taken to begin somewhere with the
> three revolutions of America, France and industry. It's a very
> imprecise idea.
Yes, but you've pretty much expressed what the charter for this group
was shooting for. I seem to recall that you were around when the name
was being debated, and one of the rejected names was in fact
soc.history.renaissance.
That said, I note that a significant percentage of the actual traffic
is later than chartered, and I'm not sure that's a Bad Thing. Has
this resulted in excessive flamage, cross-posting, and general kookery
thanks to the permanent floating flamewars of late modern history?
(Those would include most of the genocides, but arguably not the
fundamental flamewars among every nation within two countries or so of
Ankara, which are at least in origin on-topic for this group by charter.)
I'm seeing no sign of those ills as yet, though without opening the
late-modern threads (which don't interest me) I can't be sure.
As things are, although I'm not sure how much overlap there is between
those who post on late-modern topics and those who post on early-modern
ones, at least someone wandering by the group sees some *traffic* and
doesn't assume it's a dead group.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
Alex
> > be distinguished from mediaeval Europe by the renaissance and the
> > reformation. Neither of these are easy to place a date upon. At the
> > other end, late modern is generally taken to begin somewhere with the
> > three revolutions of America, France and industry. It's a very
> > imprecise idea.
>
> Yes, but you've pretty much expressed what the charter for this group
> was shooting for. I seem to recall that you were around when the name
> was being debated, and one of the rejected names was in fact
> soc.history.renaissance.
I just wrote what is generally accepted as a definition for the period.
T'wasn't I who was here when the group was set-up. There is another
"Alex" who posts here, perhaps it was him. I used to post under Rabid
Bee.
> That said, I note that a significant percentage of the actual traffic
> is later than chartered, and I'm not sure that's a Bad Thing. Has
> this resulted in excessive flamage, cross-posting, and general kookery
> thanks to the permanent floating flamewars of late modern history?
> (Those would include most of the genocides, but arguably not the
> fundamental flamewars among every nation within two countries or so of
> Ankara, which are at least in origin on-topic for this group by charter.)
> I'm seeing no sign of those ills as yet, though without opening the
> late-modern threads (which don't interest me) I can't be sure.
No, but it is tiresome to be asked for help with essays about World War
I. Still, as with all junk, I just delete it and move on.
> As things are, although I'm not sure how much overlap there is between
> those who post on late-modern topics and those who post on early-modern
> ones, at least someone wandering by the group sees some *traffic* and
> doesn't assume it's a dead group.
It is a bit quiet. I generally post on alt.history.british, which is
more of a chatty group anyway.
Cheers, Alex
Gord C
1860s through world war II. Of course this changes all the time and depends
on who is defining it, hence the reluctance to define it absolutely. The
problem is that all definitions are valid.
For some it starts after the Renaissance period generally is recognized to
end which varies between the development of the printing press by Gutenberg
to about 1750. Others form the end about the French Revolution and the
decapitation of the Sun King. I dont see any newsgroups at the moment with
renaissance.
The whole modern period for the USA implies all that time after their Civil
War. It is not a bad marker since Americans mark their time periods by
violent bloodthirsty events. For others more into the world history, it
seems to imply that period that implies that time after the Crimean
conflict. Other more economic centred on the invention of the Bessemer
Converter, the high production process for steel.
http://www.simt.co.uk/kel1/bess.htm
The mark of steel making is valid because the availability of steel
coincided with the industrialization the world over, marked social change
initiated by Samuel Gompers (union movement), philosophy of nihilism
(Nietsche and Sartre), social change, democratization and expressed in
political nonfiction and fiction writings (Dickens, Lincoln, Marx, Engels,
Lenin).
So how is the period between the Renaissance dealt with. There is in these
definitions no absolute difference such as a marked event or one moment
which is a definable period. And different cultures define these periods
differently, which is another period however on the global sense
However the definition of the modern period began with steel making is a
good one. It coincided with the end of the American Civil War, creation of
Canada (the first colony of the British Empire to reach a level of political
independence worthy of being called an independent nation). It marked the
advent of repeating arms with self contained such as the Winchester, Colt.
Gatling gun and breach loading artillery.
Academia evolved radically after 1865 as well. Paleontology, archaeology,
anthropology, geology were defined became or endured a radical shift in
academic practice. Darwin's theory became published during that period.
Surgical procedures, bio-sciences and medical infrastrure such as Health
departments were implemented or coming into being. Medicine improved in this
new modern period. There is much more to this.
The Modern period also reflected a quantum improvement in printing
technology and communications. Lead type became mechanized with the lead
type assemblers. If you haven't loaded type on a stick you would not
appreciate how advanced the linotype machine was. Early types of lithography
were being developed.
Electrical lighting systems, telegraph and telephone rapidly evolved in a
spurt of technology not matched until the late 1990s with the evolution of
the PC and the internet. The foundations for all that evolved about the
sametime as the advent of steel.
The late modern period implies the last 50 years too. For instance when I
was born the Early modern ended at the Armistice that ended World War I,
that window can be legitimately moved to the Korean War.
Take your pick.
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns921CC4D7688...@209.98.98.13...
Alex
> 1860s through world war II. Of course this changes all the time and depends
> on who is defining it, hence the reluctance to define it absolutely. The
> problem is that all definitions are valid.
Huh? I've never heard early modern defined like that before. The most
common definition would be the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with
probably a large chunk of the eighteenth century thrown in too. You
could summerise it as the Reformation to the twin Revolution of France
and Industry.
This ng's charter is for history between 1500-1800.
> For some it starts after the Renaissance period generally is recognized to
> end which varies between the development of the printing press by Gutenberg
> to about 1750. Others form the end about the French Revolution and the
> decapitation of the Sun King. I dont see any newsgroups at the moment with
> renaissance.
>
> The whole modern period for the USA implies all that time after their Civil
> War. It is not a bad marker since Americans mark their time periods by
> violent bloodthirsty events. For others more into the world history, it
> seems to imply that period that implies that time after the Crimean
> conflict. Other more economic centred on the invention of the Bessemer
> Converter, the high production process for steel.
I would consider late modern history to be that of the post-industrial
world. When you date the industrial revolution is entirely arbitrary;
invention of the spinning jenny?
> The late modern period implies the last 50 years too. For instance when I
> was born the Early modern ended at the Armistice that ended World War I,
> that window can be legitimately moved to the Korean War.
Pah! The last 50 years are officially contemporary history (certainly
the various journals of Contemporary History only deal with that
period). As an early modernist, I dispute that the previous 50 years
even rate as "history"; current affairs if you ask me! :-)
Do you really believe that the middle ages ran from the fall of Rome
until the American Civil War?
Cheers, Alex
Gord C
That definition sort of dates us, lol. Yikes we do get old fast.
I heard that definition of Modern in the mid sixties (1960s). It is good
that we both recognize that a pivotal point in human history revolved around
a piece of technology.
This should be no surprise, for there is history in this history placement
of eras. And it is relevant to our understanding of time, culture and
people. And it is strange that historical periods are usually defined by the
technical nature of that culture.
eg. Iron age, Bronze age, Stone age. The hardship of the Medieval period
suffers because it likely began with a cultural shift in Europe rather than
a technical fulcrum at its end.
Later with experience, strict definitions do vary according to one's field
of interest and the institution to which one either applies or studies with.
I did apply for courses in Early Modern and that dealt with the 1860 to the
1914 era. The lecturer focussed on the need to set the timelines of history
by
eg. For the last three years I have been assiduously researching the history
of Canadian forestry. Here the Modern Era doesn't start until 1952ad, when
horse logging was suddenly replaced with cable yarding/slashing techniques
near Stevens (Caramat) and Hearst Ontario. That would be a monumental bore
for you, but the change brought about substantial changes in the cultural
focus of Canadian towns and cultures in the Taiga lands. One change, a
technical change marks a period of change in the actual history of these
places.
It may be time to revisit such a definition as the Modern period. History
need not be linear as a clock. The rate of historical events do vary. There
is an inherent danger in not adapting and defining a historical period as
within x-years of the present day. Also time marches on.
At the museum we found it far more convenient to start studying the history
of an event almost the day after it happened. One of the greatest
impairments to our research of history was that everyone perceived that
history did not begin until fifty years after it happened.
People die. If a historian waits fifty years to talk to eyewitnesses then
the opportunities for a true view of social impact is lost. Yes the
assessment of a historical event can wait for fifty years but the process of
assembling the information must begin the minute after.
There is a dynamic shift of historical culture between the 1450s and 1800.
Between those two dates there appears to be a coherent pattern of culture
with the emergence of the potential for a dynamic change.
The rate of change within the last thirty years exceeds that cultural rate
of change in your definition within the human time line. That definition,
might have to be looked at closely for these reasons:
1. This is a new millenia. Time moves on.
2. Humans landed on the moon. This is a precise technical achievement after
which human cultural dynamics clearly changed. When that definition was
created the moon had not been reached.
3. Human social structures globally have changed since that point.
What would one call that period between the 1450s, that era with Kepler,
DaVinci, Luther, Gutenberg, Columbus, Cortez, Michelangelo and Machievelli;
to the moon landings. There appears to be a flow of technical, industrial,
commercial, transport, political and cultural progress between those points.
We do not in this time mark the moon landings with any importance at the
moment. Yet in another two perhaps three hundred years, historians then will
mark that point, the moon landings, as a definable historical point.
Everyone at the moment makes a big deal about something like September 11th
as something important but the moon landing possesses a subtler effect. War
and terror are actually commonplace. The moon landings were a technical
point impacting the social structures the world over.
As Wade Davis said in an interview on CBC's Ideas program and recounting his
encounter with a PNG native who asked. "Is it true that your people have
visited that place? (moon)"
The world before Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface was far
different than after that moment. I dare say that the new Modern Era
actually begins then. And that is worthwhile to define that which went
before (1450 - 1970) as a specific historical era.
"Alex" <rabi...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3D9F715F...@nospam.btinternet.com...
Chris Williams
wrote:
>The world before Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface was far
>different than after that moment. I dare say that the new Modern Era
>actually begins then. And that is worthwhile to define that which went
>before (1450 - 1970) as a specific historical era.
Well, there's an interesting argument to be had on sci.space.history
about whether or not the US landings on the Moon made much difference
to anyone. But I digress.
I'm not in favour or attempting to re-visit this on the issue of
definition.. 99% of people who express a preference think that EM
refers to the period between (c.1350-c.1550) and (c.1700-c.1850). Any
re-definition will need most of them to change their minds. Given that
this is very unlikely, it outweighs any conceptual advantages brought
by re-periodisation.
Chris Williams
--
"This correspondence has become tedious and must end here. To allow reply
and replication, til all misstatements and perversions are explained, and
all the new matters and personalities that might be introduced, discussed
at full, would make it endless.'
- Robert Leader applies Brooks's Law, Dec 25th, 1841.
Michael Baker
I
> > was born the Early modern ended at the Armistice that ended World War I,
> > that window can be legitimately moved to the Korean War.
>
> Pah! The last 50 years are officially contemporary history (certainly
> the various journals of Contemporary History only deal with that
> period). As an early modernist, I dispute that the previous 50 years
> even rate as "history"; current affairs if you ask me! :-)
In my head only, I have been referring to the last 40 years as "modern
cultural history". There's no better time to begin breaking down history
than the present.