The Renaissance of the 12th Century

[Beet]

Real? Imagined? What are the reasons why there was a sudden surge in interest in classical writings, the founding of universities, and general atmosphere friendly to academic inquiry at this time? Were the universities a natural outgrowth of the knowledge nurtured by the Benedictine monks? Or was it something new?

[Beet]

Part of a continuing effort to fight the idea of "Dark Ages" by extending the Renaissance back further and further rather than just pointing out that the Dark Ages were a flawed and propagandistic concept to begin with?  (See also: Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century)

Ok. From Aristotle until the mid-12th century, is 15 centuries, during which Western thought stagnated in the natural sciences. Clearly, there was some kind of Dark Ages or great decline, or else a great long stagnation, between the height of classical Greek philosophy and the Scientific Revolution. The 12th century is as good a point as any to mark when the stagnation began to end, but if you propose a different date that is fine. But to say there is no Dark Ages, leaves the question of why there was such a long stagnation in the natural sciences after Greek philosophy.

[Beet]

Late Antiquity actually could be seen as more of a 'Golden Era' (and is certainly a much more fascinating era) than the classical era of the 4th Century BC. To say that 'the natural sciences stagnated after Aristotle' is pretty much the same as saying that the natural sciences have been stagnating ever since Einstein.

What was known in Europe about the natural sciences in 1100 A.D. that wasn't known a thousand years prior?

[Beet]

Yes, I get all of that. The Middle Ages have been unfairly disparaged.

I am just trying to think of the origins of the Scientific Revolution here. For example, taking just Copernicus, he studied at Krakow University, which was founded in the 14th century. Hence, without Krakow University, there would likely have been no Copernicus. Or perhaps he might have made it to another University. But before the founding of the University of Bologna in 1088, there were no Universities in Europe. Additionally, he studied under teachers who were experts in Aristotlean and Ptolemaic writings. He read textbooks written by previous Middle Age University scholars which were commentaries Aristotle and Ptolemy. These writings were translated from Greek and Arabic to Latin in the 12th and 13th centuries, with some Arabic commentaries and additions.

The question remains though, the Arabs had Aristotle and Ptolemy since the Hellenistic era, as did the Romans (until they fell) and the Byzantines (for all time). I believe some of their writings also reached India and influenced Indian astronomy (for example, the notion that the world is round). The Byzantines and the Arabs had this knowledge for 1500 hundred years and very little progress was made. A disproportionate amount came from Spain in the 10th and 11th centuries. After that, fundamentalists took over Islamic Spain and religious authorities cut off all further study.

However, Western Europe, once the translations arrived after the 12th century, made steady progress and this led to Copernicus and Galileo within 4 centuries. Why did the Romans, Byzantines, Greeks, Arabs, and Indians have this knowledge for well over 4 centuries, in some cases nearly 2000 years, and made very slow progress? While Western Europe saw Universities sprout like jackrabbits and got to the heliocentric universe within 400 years? What was so unique and magical about Western Europe at that time? Was it the nature of the Catholic Church-- that it was less opposed to scientific / philosophic inquiry than the Caliphate, Orthodox Church, and so on? Or something else?