Slashdot Mirror
The Renaissance
The Renaissance is a short history of the period considered a high-water mark of humanity's relationship with the imagination. Historian Paul Johnson goes back to the Dark Ages to write about how the growth of intermediate technology sparked one of the greatest periods of cultural growth and invention, the Renaissance.
Technology made it possible, he concludes.
"This was," he writes, "the invention, followed by the extraordinarily rapid diffusion, of printing. The Romans produced a large literature. But in publishing it they were, as in many other fields, markedly conservative." The Romans, writes Johnson, knew about the codex -- a collection of folded and cut sheets, sewn together and enclosed within a binding. But they clung to the old-fashioned scroll as the normative form of the book.
In the Middle Ages, the spread of paper and the invention of printing by movable type was the central technological event leading the Renaissance, the spark that triggered an explosion in art, teaching, research and writing, Johnson writes. The invention of movable type for letterpress had three enormous advantages: it could be easily renewed, being cast from a mold; it could be used repeatedly until worn out; it introduced strict uniformity of lettering. (In a way, sounds like the Net's early architecture.)
Technology also had a profound affect on art, perspective, architecture and design, as Johnson also points out in this readable book.
The rest is, as they say history. Johnson tells it with authority, clarity and brevity. This is a neat book to give a teacher or parent muttering about all that time online, or lamenting the high culture of times past and the fact that kids have all gone to cultural Hell.
Sometimes unwittingly, "The Renaissance" connects the flowering of that period with the extraordinary outpouring of ideas, stories and culture made possible by the invention of the Net and the Web. Future historians may be writing about the history of this period in much the way Johnson takes on that one. It's always nice to know where we come from, as well as where we might be headed.
You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
The idea of a "dark age" in Europe prior to 1000 is mostly valid; the idea of this "dark age" continuing post-1000 until all of a sudden, knowledge, learning, and technology burst on the scene with the "Renaissance" is pure hooey.
Moreover, the Greek reading, literary-loving types extolled by the proponents of the idea of a "Renaissance", had nothing to do with the rise of technology in medieval Europe. They spent their time reading, not tinkering. Medieval craftsmen had been making advances in knowledge for centuries before the "Renaissance" (also, the "Renaissance" started before the invention of printing, so one can't even point to anything resembling a cause and effect relationship between the two).
Likewise, Western mathematics and science were created with the birth of the Western Universities (Cambridge, Oxford, Paris, Milan, etc.) CENTURIES before the "Renaissance" dabblers in ancient texts thought they had "rediscovered" Greek and Arabic mathematics and science.
Basically, the "Renaissance" is a literary phenomenon pushed by people who want to denigrate the Middle Ages and push the notion that the West is somehow a continuation of ancient, classical Greek civilization, when in fact it is a totally distinct and seperate civilization.
Jon, no, we don't equate technology with bad stuff. We equate the near-deification of technology with sloppy values, the uncritical adoption of technology with irresponsibility and the pursuit of progress as and end unto itself as short sightedness. I'm happy I have fire, the wheel and 20 year old Scotch but I don't want a drunk behind the wheel of a car. Apply that rule to the patenting of genes and the use of said technology without stringent testing. That's what we neo-Luddites are against. Now excuse me, I really must go get a horse to kick me in the head as I'm not happy with the amount of senselessness I've heard from you.
The Renaissance wasn't caused by new technologies, new technologies sprouted because of the Renaissance.
The Renaissance was caused by a suddenly influx of knowledge and information. THe simultaneous Reconquista of Spain from the Muslims allowed muslim texts and knowledge to flow into Europe while the fall of Constantinople send fleeing intellectuals from the Byzantine Empire into the musch more intellectually backwards western europe.
In addition, the printing press, you must remember, was an innovation borrowed from the Persians (who got the idea from China). The printing press was a result of the Renaissance, not its cause.
-Dean
Good point -- I've been trying to remember all that renaissance history I learned when I spent a semester in Rome. You summed it up pretty well.
Further, I'd add that many of the artistic developments of the renaissance were fueled by the rediscovery of ancient Roman works of art -- not the development of new technologies, and certainly not the printing press. The development of perspective certainly owes something to the study of geometry, but that was also relatively late in the scheme of things (and had nothing to do with the press). I don't know when books like On Painting were first actually printed. Maybe the press aided their diffusion? (Although I imagine that diffusion would be rather late behind the diffusion of perspective through traveling artists...)
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The Renaissance was the expression of ideas, philosophy and art. The artwork of the Renaissance was generally more vibrant and energetic than what had come before. It also signalled the decline of absolute papal rule with individuals such as Copernicus (even though his life generally sucked after his solar system discoveries went public) challenging the assumptions of the past.
Rapid technological advances signalled the end of the Renaissance and ushered in the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, while raising overall production in the world, also served to lower the status of the individual to a cog in the machine. Technology doomed the world to shades of gray for quite some time.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
And to save this comment from being flamebait or troll or whatever, let's examine how the current "technology revolution" is different from the printing press. I think it's critical to focus on the printing press's effect of increased literacy among the non-aristocracy. This didn't instantly propel them into power positions and topple the aristocracy or anything, but it DID increase awareness of injustice, and led (indirectly at least) to cultural revolutions that involved the common person demanding more power and autonomy.
Where is this happening nowadays? I guess we could argue that the outrage against the DMCA etc is an example of this, but it seems kind of early to tell where that's going. I certainly don't think any governments are going to be overthrown soon. Reformed? Let's hope so.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Computers are stupid, they cannot be neither good nor evil. Humans on the other hand.
There's not a thing technology can do without a human being thinking of it first and understanding it.
As a result the digital divide is reduced from this Terminator crap to a divide between people just as it always was and always will be.
As long as we only use computers as tools nothing more nothing less, computers will be ahead of us precisely because they are used to their fullest by those don't submit to such paranoid bullshit.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Antitechnologists, academic and other snoots, and neo-Luddites equate technology with the erosion of culture and civilization.
Indeed a lot of people do this without really knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunatly, making the same argument from the other side is no better or more impressive.
This is a neat book to give a teacher or parent muttering about all that time online, or lamenting the high culture of times past and the fact that kids have all gone to cultural Hell.
Perhaps, but frankly these people do have a point. If this book is mostly a history book as you make it out to be, this book most likely won't change any of these people's minds. They already know what technology has provided. What it doesn't provide and has taken away is what bothers them.
We need more writing on why correct implementation and scrutiny are very important when developing and integrating technology into our society, and how this is the larger problem. Simply lumping all "technology" in a box and saying it sucks is not the solution. Pointing out that public apathy and professional self censorship are a big problem is important as well. We don't have any mechanisms in our world to control tech development. Our society is engrained with the notion of profit making and growth through the rapid advancement of technology. The ones who conciously or subcounciously don't agree with this aren't going to be persuaded by a book on tech history.
I'll stick with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
As a veteran Katz-flamer, I have to point this out: You're making one of the same mistakes Katz makes--the ones that make us bitch and flame here in hope of The Taco Bunch finding "us" a better columnist.
/. is populated by vulgar smartypantses. These flamers' pageviews are valuable, because flamers read, reply, preview, respond, etc.--much more banner-spewage than mere "readers" would generate.
/.'s better trolls, who are just screwing around here, having a laugh. But that's not it. We're not envious of Bezos, Gates, Katz; we're just bored with their crappy-ass crap, and wouldn't mind seeing someone else's once in awhile. This seems obvious to me, but--
What you've got are two facts: 1) Katz makes "'obvious' observations." 2) A lot of us are annoyed at Katz for making these "observations."
There are a few different ways you can put those two facts together.
You could take it at face value: We, the flamers, are annoyed because Katz isn't doing his job very well. In this case, we're annoyed because he's followed his usual formula: Reword jacket blurb on book; add "One day historians may be writing similiar books about this time," or its prolix, ungrammatical, post-Columbine equivalent. He's supposed to be a pro, but his work is all half-assed, so we can't believe he's still got a job, and we bitch about it.
You could be cynical: Katz was hired because he's unimaginative and doesn't write well, and will get flamed into the dirt every time his column gets posted, because
Or, you could "go playground" on the flamers--"You're all just jealous." (Of what? Never mind that.)--because it's easy. In fact, there are a lot people of whom Slashies could be accused of being "jealous" in the "I could do that" way that you describe: Bezos, Jobs, etc.--sometimes even Gates. They did things a lot of us could do, but haven't, and they're rich, and we're mostly not. Likewise, we flamers might be ticked off because Katz just babbles here semi-coherently, much like the rest of us--but--he gets paid for it. And he's not even as good at it as
But, since you used an analogy in your post, you got modded up. Same way Katz got his job--compare things at random, based on your playground-level reaction, with which many, of course, agree, becuase it's "'obvious.'" Your "hula hoop envy" would be what we Katz-flamers call a crappy-ass crappy analogy. Makes you feel smart--after all, you've made an "observation," and it was "''obvious'" enough that you've been congratulated for it--but it doesn't really tell us anything (unless "I have made an observation" is what you're really trying to tell us), and it doesn't give us anything to talk about except how crappy that analogy was.
Just like a little tiny Katzicle. Kind of like this Printing Press:Renaissance::Internet:Now Katzicle we're flaming now, in fact.
Etc, etc, Plz die now, tech-savvy Luddites, et cetera.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
But if you're going to stick with a one-period Renaissance, you should also pay attention to the Carolingian Renaissance or the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century -- both periods in which we're discovering powerful intellectual advances. In general, most people have dismissed Europe prior to the printing press as a pure backwater and Dark Ages -- but this doesn't wash with the developments spurred by Greek and Arabic knowledge filtering back to the West, in logic with Abelard in the 12th century and in physics continuing with Grosseteste and Bacon to Bradwardine in the 14th century. A number of people have argued that the ongoing Commercial Revolution helped spur a more exact and mathematical view of the world. Even if art's what you want, the development of perspective by Giotto and Cimabue came way before the 15th century. Margaret Wertheim's Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, which Katz liked, has a lot to say about perspective.
Besides, if you're looking for the cultural impact of technology, why restrict your focus to the Renaissance? Some of the most important technologies were introduced to Europe centuries earlier, such as the watermill (which was around in late Rome), the stirrup (which enabled shock combat on horseback), the heavy plow (which enabled the tilling of the fertile northern soils), the new horse collar (which allowed horses to pull the plows without choking to death), and the three-field system of planting beans to replenish the soil (which increased the food supply by half, added protein to the diet of the poor and resulted in an immense expansion of European population). All of these had vast social consequences -- not perhaps as culturally sexy as the printing press or Michelangelo, but with far greater impact on people's lives. Personally, I'd rather that the Net's effects be more like the former than the latter.
If you're interested in the subject of medieval learning, math and technology, I'd recommend Alexander Murray's Reason and Society in the Middle Ages and Lynn White's Medieval Technology and Social Change -- although the latter has come under fire for White's tendency to worship the stirrup. I've also heard good things about Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine, although I haven't read it.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/charities.cron/
I was under the impression, that what really fueled and financed the Renaissance was the Plague. It wiped out such a huge number of people, that it rapidly eliminated overcrowding in the cities and allowed for unparalleled social mobility at the time due to the massive underemployment. It allowed the growth of the skilled middle class and craft guilds. This is related to technology, but the main reason for the Renaissance prosperity was that people were allowed to achieve positions of prominence and importance due to their abilities and not their parentage. When the population has been so gravely reduced, positions of responsibility and power fall on those who rise to the occassion. This results in the technological growth. It is the reason the United States rose to such great prosperity (we were a frontier country in which people rose to power by their own work and ingenuity, and why were are helped by the influx of plucky immigrants). Such a phenomenon is certainly seem in the Roman Empire. When an Emperor left the throne to his son the Empire decayed (e.g. Caligula, Commodus, et al.), and when it was given to a nominated successor, the Empire prospered (Trajan, Hadrian, et al.).
"Politics is for the moment, an equation lasts eternity" -A. Einstein
I'm sick of seeing things written about the Rennaissance as a spontaneous or instant emergence from the Dark Ages. There were at least two other "rennaissances" prior to the Italian Rennaissance of the 15th through 17th centuries.
The first of those other Rennaissances, under Charlemagne, began with the rediscovery of crop rotation, bringing about enough food surplus to let the population thrive rather than live perpetually on the edge of starvation. This allowed Charlemagne to establish schools throughout his dominions, in which lay the roots of what would become the Universities of the future.
The second began in the 11th or 12th century, as the rediscovery and profusion of many extant classical sources [including those which came from the Muslim world] led to the "Humanist" rennaissance, reawakening interest in the earthly state of existence and its exigencies in the nascent University communities.
The third, as Italian city-states became filled with educated lawmakers, was less a new direction than a fruition of the previous six centuries. The Rennaissance was not a grand new profusion of technology, but an ideological state in which technology could give fruit to a reborn Europe-wide civic culture.
As far as technology goes, it wasn't stagnant from the fall of Rome to the Rennaissance. Water power was harnessed in new ways to drive mills, hammers, and clocks. Masonry and carpentry were refined, as were agricultural techniques several times over [2-crop to 3-crop rotation].
For technology, the Romans made only three contributions over their thousand-year history: the arch, concrete, and the crane. Their record on the development of technology was far worse than that of Europe over the thousand years that followed their fall.
Larsal
In the same way that slashdotters roll their eyes and grumble when the media misuse the term "hacker," people who know anything about the original luddites, or who participate in the radical critique of technology, cringe at the straw-man oversimplification "Luddite."
Many of today's "luddites" would say, for instance, that "culture and civilization" are of course promoted and assisted by technology. But they would argue that culture and civilization are being advanced at the expense of people, families, and human values.
Technology and civilization gave us the printing press, but they also gave us the practices of agriculture and urban living that unleashed smallpox and the black plague. A one-sided account of the effects of technology and civilization is a dishonest account.
---
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
(maybe it's off-topic, maybe not - Mod only knows)
At any rate, the reason the Roman Empire didn't last is they were afraid of change. Comparison of the Eastern Empire to the Western Empire (ie Byzantium to 'Rome') shows that the West began to fall almost immediatly, with everything but the city itself crumbling. The Eastern Empire, long considered to be effeminite and wussy, in fact managed to grow considerably due to trade (which was a very un-Roman way to make a living) and innovation (eg "greek fire"). Most likely the Eastern Empire would have "made it" had not the Persians to the south suddenly converted from Zorastorianism to Islam and become twice as fierce as they had been.
BUT, the point is, the West fell because it feared change, and that is what prevails today in the form of Neo-luddites et al. So, are you a successful, effeminite Greek emptoros, or a failing, masculine ROMAN serf? I assure you, to the Ancient world, that was the choice. Read the books, esp. Petronius, Horace, Catullus, and Ovid.
io hymen hymnaee io
io hymen hymnaee
Big political units go hand in hand with cultural progress. Easy to see here on the Rhein, where hundred of castles were blown by kings impatient with local warlords.
The EU and the WTO are really a continuation of this trend.
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
Tech then, as now, serves as a tool for a pre-existing movement, not as its catalyst. And there will be no Renaissance today without a corresponding intellectual movement that can use tech. I highly doubt that tech itself will spawn anything, not on its own.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
First the Italian mercantile culture spawned high-art as well as trade, but the art stayed with the midaeval religious themes (blending in the rediscovered Roman antiquities). Then the printing press brought on the Reformation and Enlightenment, and the end of intensely religious themes (the Passion, the Virgin, martyrdom in general) as the center of visual and aural art.
Now the industrial revolution spawned pop-art as well as manufacture and trade, but the pop-art stayed on 18th and 19th century themes (family values, action-adventure quests, bringing civilization and political correctness to the 'inferior' cultures, progress through the conquest of nature). Then the Internet came and the dominant themes of our dominant arts changed to ... what?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Its just as dangerous to worship tech as it is fear it.
The real question when you look at technology has to be if the current culture is capable of understanding it(technologically, economically, historically, ethically, and morally) and therefore aware of how it could be used for bad and when people are making false claims of its use. When you look at Genetically Modified Oraganisms we something even more dangerous happening. We see a government, the US, not informing its people that they are eating GMOs. The US government assumes that the food is safe but has done no studies to prove or disprove this. They are also making blind claims of ecosystem safety but have done no tests or studies. These are the kind of arrogent actions we can see from history that lead to very undesirable results. Think of DDT. The government promised it was safe, and strayed it everywhere. Later we come to find DDT moving up the food chain and in higher and higher concentrations. In Eagle's it causes the shells to be thin and the eggs die. That lead to the near extinction of the Bald Eagle.
Or think Agent Orange.
Appearantly we have not learned any lessons and are throwing caution to the wind in the name of profit.
Its like we are freaking Feringi.
The Western Roman Empire fell circa 476 AD not just because of Black Death, but military dissention, bureaucratic mismanagement, and the Germanic tribes' constant attacks.
My hog-fscking opinion for what it's worth: Technology languished for ~800 years due to the refusal to propagate knowledge by the Church of Rome and the Royalty. Note that the only scholars of the time were monks and very-high-ranking officials.
The less the peasants know, the more loyal they will remain to us.
Imagine if you will, what would have happened if Marxism was thought up between 500-1500 AD. It'd probably make the Peasant's Revolt look like a bar fight.
Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
He's a British historian who is frequently known as 'Bonkers' Johnson due to the often mad views expressed in his Daily Mail weekly column which takes an extreme Thatcherite view.
His writing style is good but he should be taken with a large pinch of salt as he has gone from being a left winger in the 1960s and 70s (He used to edit the New Statesman which is the socialist's weekly magazine) to an ultra right wing conservative in the 80's and 90's (worships Magaret Thatcher).
He wrote a book published in 1994 called 'Intellectuals' where he looked at the personal lives of Rosseau, Marx, Satre, Tolstoy and showed them up as hypocrites. However he too was guilty of the crime as he preached on about family values in his newspaper columns and was found to be paying prostitutes so he could spank them.
We all know it's 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101...
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
This is why people get upset with Katz, he makes a lot of 'obvious' observations. He might not even be the first person do make them, he just recognizes their importance.
Yet another book about how the printing press sparked the rennaisance, how original.
The iron plow was probably at least as important.
The Roman scratch plow didn't make deep furrows, so planting had to wait until the weather was warmer and frost wouldn't kill the seedlings as often. With the iron plow (which itself was possible thanks to the metallurgical improvements made in the quest for better armor), farmers could be more productive and fewer farmers were needed. So more people were able to do non-farming things, including inventing the printing press.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
* (er, well, depending on your views of theology and/or nanotech life extension, I'll probably actually be dead, and if I'm not dead, then probably there will have been enough big surprises that this one won't jump way out of the pack, plus I'll have had 500 years of watching the evolution of communications, but nonetheless, I certainly don't expect now that what historians will be doing 500 years from now will necessarily resemble current books.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The criticism levelled against Katz is partially deserved, and partially not. It is fairly obvious to most intelligent people that there are similarities between the development of writing and the development of computing. Both provided humanity with greater freedom of expression, all of which gave rise to phenomenal changes in the world landscape.
Katz could discuss more pertinent issues such as how precisely can we learn from the renaissance, other than realising that what is happening now is approximately similar.
Also, reading up on the Medici family and the history of Florence, one would realise that a large reason for the flowering of arts was due to the patronage of the ruling families (Cosimo I and Lorenzo). Now if the present day wealth of the United States is squandered away, then humanity won't be left with great things, but will be squandered on suburban acreage.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
It's well-known that the invention of eyeglasses in Florence greatly improved worker productivity. I wonder what future historians will say about lasik, which seems to be very popular with people in information technology.
--
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Technology is shurely a conditio sine qua no, however a second important point is the climate of competition which reigned in europe from these days on. Contrary to China, europe and especially Italy at that time was shattered to small independent states each competing for advances in whealth, culture etc. After the loss of the churches position as the guardian of truth, the influx of the arabian knowledge together with the newly found technology of books enabled the dissemination of the newly found empirical insights and their discussion throughout europe (italy). This europe-wide discussion was facilitated by the common scientific language latin.
The important point was, that whenever the scientist or artist had a problem with the local authority, he could leave and find a different state in which he could complete his work, because a higher central political authority was largely absent (the church however was still there).
I forgot from which book I took this.
Contrary to popular belief, European civilisation was vastly farther in 1200 than in say 300. The Romans didn't even have real plows, let alone stirrups, wind and (good) watermills, buttons, and more other basic technologies than are worth mentioning here.
The next crash came in 1348 (the Black Death again). The Renaissance didn't come from nowhere, it was solidly based on three thousand years of steady European growth.Obviously the Roman Empire was a high point, but just as an example, Slavic Celtic and Germanic languages (including the ancestors of English) begin being written in the late ages of Rome. The rest is history.
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
Another good read in this regard is Lisa Jardine's Worldly Goods - A New History of the Renaissance (1996). She traces the origins of the renaissance not to any single technological development (like the printing press), but to the spread of commerce and the resulting rise of a mercantile class. The new demand for works of art - and, to a large extent, books - was driven by the need to gain social status by exhibiting one's wealth. Much like today!
Even more importantly, renaissance refers to a rebirth of learning. At the time, most people felt they weren't doing anything new, just rediscovering what the ancients had (it took people a while to realize it once they started surpassing them).
I don't think Rome had anything like the technology we have now...
While I appreciate Johnson's writing, and his notions are told in a lucid, authoritative and often times clever manner, to assume this conclusion from the text and indeed from the time would be off-base. I don't like the music of the 50s or 80s much, but I'm not yet prepared to say that the Internet Generation was sparked from the rubble of a "Dark Ages"-type time. The pre-computer era was one of the most technologically imaginitive in our history and if we truly are too get a glimpse into where we are headed, maybe we should tell the events of the past with greater accuracy.
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
Why is there all this Katz bashing here? Okay, so you might not agree with what the guy is saying and stuff, but honestly, so what? At least Katz is contributing something. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I find "Katz articles" very entertaining. If you've got something better/more intelligent/whatever, then write in instead. Jeez...
Tron Software -= Kickin' Butt and Writin' Code =-
Yet another book about how the printing press sparked the rennaisance, how original. This seems a rather pedestrian and obvious observation, that I am sure has been written about ad nauseum - do we really need another book about it.
Oh, and Katz really shows me his insight with the little teaser 'perhaps someday someone will write the same of our time...' Wow, Katz's mind just makes all these cool little connections I would never see on my own... Now I know why I continue to masochistically read every one of his articles.
-josh
OK, now, I understand drawing some parrallel conclusions, but I really, seriously doubt that anyone writing a book about the classical Renaissance is trying to go out of their way to justify the current Internet revolution through the "hindsight of the classical period". I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem that way to me.
While I agree that we should always strive to remember the lessons of the past, I ask that we have the right to draw our own conclusions. Jon Katz reviews a book, and he tells us what we are supposed to take out of it. I thought it was the job of the reviewer to say whether ( in the case of an historical book) the author has managed to cover the subject matter well, not to try and tell the reader how to read the book, or what conclusions to draw.
Is Katz really this entrenched in the technology sector? I mean, surely no one can truly be that one dimensional. Yes, I want to learn the lessons of the past, but when I read about the history of the Greek or Roman empires, I do not go out of my way to try and link that history with anything that I am currently working on. It just seems daft to assume that whatever you are working on is automatically to be considered as important, in an historical context, as something as big and powerful (at the time) as the Roman Empire, or the Renaissance and the intellectual revolution that evolved from it.
It is possible that we are in such a time. But we have a long way to go before we can say that all humanity will benifit from this whole Internet thing in the same way all humanity benifited from that time. And frankly, I'm not real interested in having all of my history lessons applied to the Internet. There are other things happening in the world, even now, that aren't directly tied up in the Internet. Perhaps Katz should step away from his job for a while and check some of those things out? Just a suggestion. A vacation never hurt anybody.
------------
I haven't read the book, but I can tell you for certain that the printing press was not the major cause of the Renaissance. I don't know if this is a distortion of Johnson's words by Katz, or a gross error by the author, but the Renaissance (as conventionally defined) predated the printing press by at least a hundred years.
Gutenberg produced the first Bible c. 1455, but the Italian Renaissance was in full swing by then, largely an outcome of the mercantile culture of the Italian city-states. The later European Renaissance movements were more outgrowths of the Italian one than spawned by the printing press. They too seem to have been caused mostly by the growth of town culture and the rise of the middle class.
A solid argument can be made for the printing press as the greatest single cause for the Reformation. However, it is incorrect to name it as the primary cause of the Renaissance. I'm not saying that it had no effect, but other factors were at play.