[jwestbury]

While I do I agree with you -- I studied English lit at university, have translated portions of Beowulf, can read Chaucer aloud in Middle English, and generally love all things medieval -- I also think that the general societal understanding of the middle ages is negative.

And, in fact, I'd say that most students in the humanities -- i.e., those who generally study and care about history -- tend to view the past through the lens of the present, which often leads to negative perceptions even of reformers and progressives of their time. I recall several instances in my own classes -- now nearly 20 years ago, sigh -- when students criticised medieval writers for their racist/sexist/etc. views, even when the writers were notably forward-thinking. Chaucer, in particular, skewed the institutions of the time, and portrayed female characters of remarkable agency, but is often criticised by those who don't consider the context in which he lived. You can see this today with the founding fathers of the US, too -- wholesale castigation of slave owners, even those who were more modern in their thinking than the average politician of the time.

What I think the author of the linked article really misunderstands is that our own mores and inclinations are not those of the past, nor are they those of the future. The people of early modern Europe looked down on the middle ages and viewed ancient Greece and Rome as Platonic ideals (pun somewhat intended), which is a view the author would probably disagree with, given the fact that most of Rome's history was, in fact, anti-democratic, and that Greece's "democracy" was far less egalitarian than even early America's.

Perhaps future generations will see us as enlightened. You never know.

[stareatgoats]

> Perhaps future generations will see us as enlightened

Sorry for being a bit like a terrier here, not letting go of my "prey" once I have sunk my teeth into it. The prey in this case (which I tried to express in the parent) is the notion that one can generalize the opinions, or lenses if you like, of an entire age, be it the present, or some age in the past or future. So, "future generations will see" is a variety of this, and I'm protesting: one should not use such language at all, instead one could for example say "the dominant view among people in academia", or "some mechanics that work in east coast autoshops", or "the druids generally held the view", or "the mainstream view in the future will probably be" etc.

That aside, yes - this is also one of my problems with large trends not only in academia, but culture in general: there is not much of attempt to understand previous ages on their own terms. Instead the present day ideas and ideals are projected on radically different times. Not always; historians who are serious about their work will at least try to avoid it.