OK, So I picked this up an a raid on the local bookstore this weekend, and I started reading it the same night. I have to say that I have not completed the book, and that I'm unsure whether I'm going to bother.

Some of the medical researches that he presents in the first part of the book are quite interesting, and might be fascinating to persue, and these are documented and referenced clearly and presented lucidly. It goes down hill from there, unfortunately, in the next chapters.

It's unfortunately chock full of unsupported statements, statements that are questionable if not outright wrong (e.g. it does *NOT* require an assistant and a half an hour to reload a crossbow...) and flippant 20th Century moralizing on the customs and practices of the period.

All in all I'm not impressed with this work, especially by someone who is *supposed* to be a reputable historian. It seems to be playing fast and loose with the facts in order to pander to a broader public. I would not recommend it for anyone serious about historical research.

I will, just because I'm a stubborn cuss, finish it, and I'll revise this when I do.

Ta

Thanks for the review! It could hardly be worse than "A World lit only by Fire" (tell me it isn't worse than that!).

If the solid data is valuable regarding the medical research is worthwhile, then that is good to know. Sometimes gems of information are found amidst piles of swill, but it is nice to know wether it is worthwile wading through beforehand.

--------------------

AHHHH. You mentioned that book! Now I have to go wash my hands.

'A World Lit Only By Fire' is my hallmark for how *bad* a book on a hitorical subject can be, actually... :-) A more dismal, disagreeable and just plain WRONG interpretation you'd be very hard pressed to find.

For what it's worth, no, the Plague book is not *that* bad, but it's close at points. It's misleading, ill researched and condescending, but not downright malicious. It's still, however, way a long way from good.

As for gems amongst the swill, well at least you don't have to wade to far. Most of that stuff is front loaded into the first chapter, so you can get most of it pretty quick and not bother with the rest. If theres anything later in the book that's of worth, I'll post further, but my reading schedule has been cramped recently.

Ta

Adhemar

--------------------

Ta

Adhemar

<review>

In the Wake of the Plague: the Black Death and the World it Made by Norman F. Cantor
Perennial, C. 2001

I have to say that I picked up this book with some anticipation, as it is a subject that interests me, is involved in the period I research, and is generally treated cursorily and with vagueness at best and misinformation and superstition at worst. Mr. Cantor is generally regarded as a reputable historian in the field, and so I had some hopes of a reasonable read.

In this I was greatly disappointed. While there is, in the first couple of chapters, some interesting information on recent plague research, the remainder of the book is shallow and facile, and actually calls into
question (for me at least) the value of the information presented in those first chapters. In his attempts to make the book 'readable' by the general public Mr. Cantor has adopted a loose, story-telling manner,
blithely glossing over important facts, and introducing meaningless irrelevancies to a rambling narrative style. In his attempts to display the 'relevance' of the subject matter to the modern reading audience he spends a great deal of time and effort creating and discussing wildly extenuated chains of cause-and-effect situations, and wandering off into what are perhaps meant to be humorous asides. The bibliography may be
the most useful portion of the book.

Throughout the book he makes casual assertions that are questionable at best, and wildly inaccurate at worst portraying the whole of society through a rather dim lens, judging the 14-15th centuries with 20th
century morals and finding a great deal of fault with the whole. His grip on the history of the period in general is adequate, but his
command of the details ranges from inaccurate to grossly wrong, repeating superstitions and old wives tales as fact. His tone on the
whole comes off as being a rather snide and superior 'why couldn't these stupid, benighted people act in a more intelligent manner' way, and dismally judgmental of the culture and society of the time.

On the whole, I would not recommend this book. For anyone.

</review>

Permission granted to forward/publish as desired, as long as attribution is given.

[ 09-03-2002: Message edited by: Adhemar ]

--------------------

Ta

Adhemar

quote:

---

I must admit that I haven't studied much history, so what's wrong with it? Has it led me astray?

---

I'm afraid it has misled you. Mr. Manchester's depiction of the medieval period is a classic of the 'measly middle ages' school of thought, his portrayal of medieval man as being this idiotic, shuffling, diseased and plague ridden imbecile, too stupid to come in out of the rain, shuffling in blind and benighted misery towards the sun-lit glory of the eventual Renaissance is, while to some extent classic, almost entirely wrong.

Yes, when Rome fell, there was a period of instability, as it took most of 'civilization' with it when it went. But to read Mr. Manchester, what happened between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance was nothing but ignorance, superstition, misery, plague, war and death, until *finally* some clever monkey woke up and said 'Hey! I know! Let's have a Renaissance!' The truth is much more complicated and interesting, to a real student of history, and especially a student of the period in question. People of the period studied, history, philosophy, theology, math, architecture, any number of subjects. Knowledge and learning was by no means forgotten, and in many cases advanced during the period. They wrote and practiced law based both on Roman traditions and local customs, managed their lives, farmed their lands and were productive citizens. It was a vital time of growth, with new practices in farming allowing the cultivation of previously marginal lands, a growth in population, the flourishing of cities and towns and the advances in commerce and trade. indeed, much of the commercial structure that allowed the flourishing of the renaissance was formed in the later medieval period.

One need only look at the cathedrals of France, England, Spain and Germany to see the advances in architecture, and to the castles, manors and town halls to see it in a secular vein. It was a great age for building, and many of the structures created then are still revered and used to this day. If you can say that about *any* structure built in our lifetime in 8-900 years, I'll eat my hat (OK, so that's a pretty safe bet, both I *and* my hat will be dust by then... ). And one can look to the sculptures, frescoes, stained glass therein as proofs of the art of the period. And let us not forget the illuminated manuscripts as examples of both beauty and scholarship in the same package.

All in all, I found Mr. Manchester's depiction of the medieval period, the 'Dark Ages' as backward, disingenuous and quite frankly, offensive to a scholar of the period, even an amateur one such as myself. Quite frankly, looking at history through a 'moral' lens of today's social norms is always a mistake, and making judgments based on that lens is faulty at best, and futile at worst. Mr. Manchester abrogates his mantle as a historian by taking this path. Face it, we like to think that we are the pinnacle of civilization, but in 1000-1500 years, somebody just like Manchester is going to be writing about 'those poor bastards who didn't know any better than...'

quote:

---

If so, what do I need to learn to correct what I read?

---

For the most part 'popular' history is a shaky ground at best. What interests you in particular? Is there any period or aspect of period that captures your attention? I'm a Hundred Years War man, myself, and could make recommendations from the general to the specific on that subject, if you like...

I generally recommend that one start with 'global' histories, and work one's way down to more specific works as you find subjects that interest you. "The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe" and books of that ilk are genrally good places to start... then flip to the bibliography and go from there... And you can always ask questions in this forum, which has a good number of knowledgeable people participating in it.

--------------------

Ta

Adhemar