The Dark Ages: A New Book, an Old Idea and a Quick Post

I saw another The New York Times item in my Google News feed this morning:

“Scholars Cringe at the Term ‘Dark Ages.’ Dan Jones Explains Why.
The New York Times • Yesterday

As I said Monday, I don’t and won’t have a subscription to The Times, New York or otherwise, so I don’t know what “Scholars Cringe…” says. Or what the book reviewer says, more accurately.

But I know it’s a book review, because this is the blurb I found after a quick Google search:

“https://www.nytimes.com › Books › Book Review
Scholars Cringe at the Term ‘Dark Ages.’Dan Jones Explains …
1 day ago — Jones’s book ‘Powers and Thrones’ is a comprehensive history of the Middle Ages that links the medieval era’s genuine achievements to modern …”

Had I but world enough and time — but I don’t.

The Middle Ages, Saeculum Obscurum and Viewpoints

So I won’t look up Dan Jones, his new book and whatever other people, things and events connect with them.

Apart from this link:

• “Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages”
  Dan Jones / Goodreads

About the “Dark Ages,” that phrase and idea goes back to around 1600, when ecclesiastical historian Cardinal Caesar Baronius called the time between 888 and 1050, give or take a bit, the Saeculum obscurum.

The Catholic Church hit a particularly rough patch during the ninth to 11th centuries.

I’ve talked about that, and vaguely-related ideas. Recently:

• “Old St. Peter’s, Visigoths and a Henry” (November 6, 2021 )
  • Old St. Peter’s and a Post-Roman World
• “Christopher Marlowe and His World” (March 6, 2021)
  • Renaissance Reflections
• “Space ‘Firsts:’ New Horizons, Chang’e-4” (January 18, 2019)
  • Viewpoints

And now I’ll get back to Medicean Stars, the quintescence gap and reactions to “Sidereus Nuncius” — which I hope will make sense, once I finish “A Star by Any Other Name.”