World Lit Only by Fire

My general impression of Manchester's A World Lit Only by Fire is that it is unreliable and more misleading than anything else. I came across another group where some readers were praising it. Thoughts?

I'm so glad you started this topic, because I'm just about to start reading it. The impression I get is that it's a good read but bad history, but I'm waiting to see for myself.

A World Lit Only by Fire is readable but otherwise is a terrible introduction to medieval history. Manchester clearly approaches the period not with an abiding interest or love, such as one sees in the works of R.W. Southern, but with loathing. This means he views the whole of the period as only a dark interlude before the glorious rebirth of the early modern era, a long period in which nothing important changed and nothing happened. This utterly ignores much of the scholarship of the past half century regarding the vital developments, the political, social and intellectual shifts and critical events (such as the Black Death) of the medieval period without which the early modern era could not have been what it was.

Compounding the problem are some horrible errors of fact and interpretation. He talks about the "mindlessness" of the people of the medieval period (tell that to Abelard or Aquinas or any number of chroniclers, theologians and academics). He asserts that peasants wandered about naked(!) Apparently peasants didn't have surnames (not true, or at least so simple). My favorite was "the medieval man's lack of self ego" (page 21). Really? I am a scholar of Giraldus Cambrensis and the man had a huge ego. Such simplistic nonsense de-humanizes the people of the medieval period, removing their agency and making them nothing more than ciphers or pawns of Big Men and Wicked Events.

Absolute and pernicious Trash.

This means he views the whole of the period as only a dark interlude before the glorious rebirth of the early modern era, a long period in which nothing important changed and nothing happened.

Ugh, I hate that. Maybe I won't read it after all. Why deliberately annoy myself?

Thanks for the detailed response guernicus.

Usually I am one of those people who needs to experience something to judge it, but recently I have been finding that reviews by qualified individuals are enough to direct me in other directions. I was also plannin gon reading this book, but now I'll move to the next option. If there's one thing I cannot abide it's a book that claims to be a history that is only a reaffirmation of someone's biases. Thank you.

I'm about halfway through A World Lit Only by Fire now, and while I have to agree there are some startling inaccuracies, I'm enjoying the Reformation section. Manchester pulls together a lot of basic information on the humanist movement in pre-Reformation Germany, a fascinating philosophical movement that is under-appreciated.

We might be happier today if the humanists, rather than Luther with his morbid sense of sin, had emerged as the dominant influence from that period of Western civilization. Manchester seems to be less inaccurate in this section (though he does go for drama at the expense of thoughtfulness) than in his section on the "Dark Ages." Luther fans are likely to be offended, however, by his overemphasis on Luther's anal fixation. While that was quite real, Luther was a more complex and intellectual man that Manchester's account makes him seem.

My recommendation: Worth reading for an entertaining overview of the period, but don't rely on it to be accurate in all respects. People put off by the dry nature of more scholarly accounts might want to read this first for a memorable "who's who" of the Renaissance period. A general familiarity with important people and events helps make the scholarly works more accessible and interesting.

How timely that there are so many posts here--I was just starting out this book when I signed on to Librarything, so it sold the site for me.

I was just beginning the book then, and it was alternatively enlightening and disappointing. I've read several Manchester books in the past and even visited Essen while in Germany after reading The Arms of Krupp. They looked at me pretty weirdly at the youth hostel--I think I was the only American tourist they had that year. Anyway, he's a great writer and that made me open to reading this book, that and it's really short.

The narratives are great, and worth the read. I'd never known much about the humanists or Luther or how the Reformation developed. But whenever he attempts broad descriptions of life in any period it feels really shaky. Social history is part social science. Human behavior is infinitely variable, it's how prevalent a type of behavior is that really counts. Another poster pointed out the exaggerated claim that peasants were so poor they went naked in the summer. I'm sure some chronicler said that, but can we really accept that as fact across Europe?

There are other areas where he would have done better to stick to what he knew rather than make claims. He states that in the dark ages the only technological advances were the waterwheel and the windmill. What about German mining technology? Monastic clocks? There were lots of developments in the dark ages laying the ground work for technological development in the late medieval period--and historians were talking about this before 1991.

Overall the early portion of this book reminded me of the Golden Book Encyclopedias I had when I was a kid. Somewhere among the articles about amphibians and Damon & Pythias was an entry on the Dark Ages, with a description of a terrible lapse of civilization. Manchester doesn't go much beyond this before he gets to his real work narrating the exciting developments of the Renaissance.

If A World Lit Only by Fire is not a very good history of Medieval Europe can someone recommend a good one?

Eamon Duffy's, The Stripping of the Altars and Voices of Morebath come to mind. Both focus on life in England, Altars is the history of the English reformantion and it's aftermath, Morebath is about life in an English village before during and after the reformation.

Rodney Stark has also written on life in medieval Europe:

http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/104-5436365-9826353?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook...

I just read (the first half or so) of Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475 by Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter; I think Tierney revised Painter - sorry touchstones not available. I found it a balanced and lively account.

I'm currently reading Church and State in Early Christianity (through the 8th century) by patristics scholar Hugo Rahner and intend to read Tierney's The Crisis of Church and State: 1050-1300. Huh. It looks like whoever would add these Tierney books would boost their obscurity.

It really depends what you're interested in...economics? medicine? everyday life? is there a specific country or time during the Middle Ages that you are interested in, or are you looking for a general book just to get the basics?

A general survey of the Dark Ages in Europe from the loss of Roman influence to the defeat of Harold at Battle, near Hastings, in England. I would also be interested in the same sort of treatment of Russia during this same period.

Volume II of A History of Private Life edited by Georges Duby is pretty interesting, and full of great information about how people lived. He does have a thesis, which is that people didn't really have private lives in ancient times and gradually developed them as civilization progressed.

I've just added Johan Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages to my library, but haven't had a chance to start reading it yet. It's a classic - first published in 1921, I believe, which means some of his ideas will be out of style now. Manchester may have been overly influenced by it.

I tend to be dubious about all theories that assume people's psyches were once somehow fundamentally different than they are today. Of course, living standards and cultural expectations could be dramatically different, and people are remarkably adaptable, generally falling in line with whatever beliefs are fashionable in their societies. In many of the more brutal periods, it's likely the average person suffered from what we today would diagnose as one or another kind of mental illness.

I like Raffaella Sarti's Europe at Home and Fernand Braudel's The Structures of Everyday Life, which are geared less toward proving any particular theory of the past than toward assembling information about how people actually lived. A lot of this is darned interesting - dining customs, for example. However, both books start their coverage with the year 1500, when the Middle Ages was coming to an end. And these deal with everyday life rather than political or philosophical developments.

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of readable Russian history in English. But maybe someone will prove me wrong with a good suggestion!

Oh, and more in line with what you're looking for, there's Michael Wood's In Search of the Dark Ages. It's confined to British history and is written in a popular style that stresses biography as much as possible. He's not flogging a theory, though he does capitalize on the speculation about who the real "King Arthur" might have been - without drawing any overly speculative conclusions himself.

Thank you Margad for these wonderful suggestions. I read Barbara Tuchman's Through A Glass Darkly (there does not seem to be a touchstone for this book, or else I have the name wrong) when it first came out and thought that was an excellent way to present a time period covering all aspects of life and society. I know there is a lot less source material during the time I am interested in at present, but maybe some of your suggestions will fill the bill. I was afraid there wouldn't be very much on Russian history of the time.

Thanks for your recommendations.

> 16
Wasn't it "A Distant Mirror"... ?

If by Russian you mean Pre-Mongol invasion, You should really read The Russian Primary Chronicle. It's a primary source, and it's available online for free. It's hard to find reliable books that give general overviews. The more specific you get, the better they tend to be. There actually has been *alot* written about pre 13th century Russia, but if you type in Russia as a search word, you won't get very far. If you go to Amazon and look for books on Rus' history, Byzantine history, or Kiev history, you will find what you are looking for. Hope that helps!

Doh, I have miscalled that book since the day it was published. Like a mental tick. A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman. No wonder it couldn't find a touchstone for it.

Once again, thank you all for your suggestions. I feel like I will have trove of riches to choose from.

Does anyone have any opinions on Norman Cantor's The Civilization of the Middle Ages? I am reading it now, and find its thematic approach unsatisfactory, but I wonder if that's just me.

I'm curious. What's its thematic approach?

Cantor's approach is warmed over Marxism, but he's also really sloppy. He's much less interested in communicating the humanity of the past and instead using it to make certain points. He says that the Egyptian class structure was perpetuated through the Middle Ages. He compares monasteries with space ships. I stopped reading Cantor after several days because I thought he was making me stupider by the minute. Read Tierney instead for a solid general intro to the Middle Ages - Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475.

Fred

Oh my, that's considerably weirder than average! Tierney looks like the one to go for. I'll put it on my list.

I was also disappointed by "A World lit only by fire." I have read quite a few of Manchester's other books & found him to be a skilled writer. However, he virtually writes off religion as being a positive influence in the dark & Mideavel ages. There is a book by Isaac Asimov called The Dark Ages written for YA that gives a good overview. There are also biographies of Charlemagne that cover the era. A distant mirror is great for the 14th. century. Actually, I have found some fiction-Ellis Peters & her pBrother Cadfael series of mysteries come to mind as does works by Sharon Kay Penman. Novels based on the King Arthur legend tend to veer into fantasy or imagination but they are interesting reads.

Norman Cantor's, Civlization of the Middle Ages, is a great text on the Middle Ages. I disagree that it is overly Marxian. You probably won't find a better more indepth text. It is a standard text for most college middle ages courses. I'm not familiar with Tierney, but have heard it is less in-depth and less comprehensive. Manchester is a great author, i love his WW II works. He a has a style of writing that is verbose and grand. I love it. However, I think, Lit by Fire, is a bit biased and sophomoric in the analysis of history, especially the earlier parts. I'd say read it first then follow it with Cantor, then delve into more academic and specialized texts.

Manchester is always good for a laugh, but I would never, ever recommend it as a book to learn about the Middle Ages. THere's a line in the intro or first chapter that is a real howler. "crippled by rickets" "stepping blindly into a future that they barely understand..." truly amazing.

I'm not fond of Cantor, either, but that's mostly because I think he was fond enough of himself to make any good feelings from the rest of us unnecessary.

Resurrecting an old discussion. I’m currently reading Medieval Europe: A Short History by C. Warren Hollister. It does a good job of covering the period without going to in depth. It’s also enjoyable to read which is probably almost as important.

Good heavens. What's this man's background? Does anyone know.

Manchester had a Masters in English.

There's an article about him here. *buttoning her lip*

Jmniman and d2vge...

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I'll skip this one.

I've read both A World Lit Only By Fire and Hollister's Medieval Europe, so I think I'll pipe in. I won't say much, though, since it's been a good while since I read either.

I didn't find A World Lit Only By Fire so great, either, mostly because it isn't really medieval history, but just one snippet of Renaissance history. And I wouldn't even recommend it for Renaissance history (though I don't have anything I can suggest in its place).

Hollister's Medieval Europe was a good basic textbook on medieval Europe. I found it entertaining, as textbooks go, but it's a textbook. Worth reading if you need a one-book general overview of Europe in the Middle Ages, but not something I'd knock myself out for.

The problem with any book on "Medieval Europe" is that there is so much of it. ;

Only being slightly silly, but you've got the period of transition from Rome to the Germanicized states, and then Big Charles and his wacky sons, the 12th Century Renaissance and that later boring one. It's alot of ground to cover.

I'm only on page 10 of the book and I think it is complete rubbish. I am not into much of any history book, much less if I am required to read it for school, but this one takes the cake on the worst one that I have ever started to read. Now, I have to write an essay on what I think on his context and insert my opinion. This post has helped me a lot, I will be sure to list this site for we are mostly of the same opinion.

Kuhn 08

Kuhn 08...

If your not into "much of any history book", why on earth are you logging into a group that's all about history? ;)

And in any case, after you graduate --in 2-3 years? -- you won't be plagued with higher education any more. Unless you pursue an upper level engineering degree, of course.

I agree with you on that ThePam. I enjoy history immesnly. It is one of my favorite subjects, placing second only to that of English, my major next year when I head into college. The only problem I have with history books in particular is... this one. Though books on history are a bit dry in my taste for I am bit more into Dante, Shakespeare, and Wilde.

Hi Kuhn08.
Glad to hear you like History :)

Personally, I used to HATE history... then I ended up switching from a physics major to early medieval studies--LOL!

Pivotal to this change was that I was taught by my mentor to give up reading these sorts of history books, in order to read the original sources. So I read the Venerable Bede, Snorre Sturleson, Caesar and Catullus. And fell in love with history.

Truth is, that at least for me, seeing events at the ground level was more interesting. Trying to get my mind around what people at any particular time were thinking and feeling was challenging and made for much better reading than some other historians 'interpretation' of what they said.

And what I found out was that some historians suck. Some can't write well and some have even worse problems. For example, authors such as the Gies drag 'modernisms' into their interpretation of data/events/writings, thus rendering their observations useless.

In any case --sorry for the ramble -- are your literary tastes mostly late medieval?

To #1: A World Lit Only by Fire is a joke among medieval scholars I know who have mentioned it. The less one knows about the period, the more likely one is to praise it, I suppose.

Cantor's biases can influence what he has to say rather heavily at times.

#34 ThePam: I enjoyed your reference to "that later boring one"(Renaissance). I have a tendency to say "oh, that modern stuff" to post-13th century topics at times 8-)
My favorite emperor is Fred 2, but Big Charles is an interesting one, too.

You know -- the site is named "Medieval Europe", NOT Medieval History, I'm a lit major and I believe others are art/art history, languages, etc. from some of the posts, so expecting everything to be at the level of graduate HISTORY seems to be asking a lot. In addition, at least one of the questions was about what people LIKE which is not necessarily the same as what is the best academic, historical, qualified source. I LIKE some of the not so historical books for loose background. I know they are loose background. I tend to think that anything that gets people reading about, interested in, studying medieval Europe has value. THEN people can get into what is primary, current, qualified, etc.

42:It is not unreasonable in my opinion to demand a certain level of historical accuracy even in "popular" works. It is all well and good to say that if any material on the topic is being read that's a benefit but if it takes specialized literature to unlearn the mistakes previously learned in the popular history then what was the point of the popular history then?

I'll give an example from World War II material. Several popular histories as well as a current play give the story that Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed to maintain the secret of Enigma. Now this is nonsense. Which if one looks in the specialized literature one can quickly discover but since it's in the popular accounts it gets repeated over and over again.

I agree with your point in principle -- however, I teach at a college at which the student reading level is abysmal --if they'll read Cantor or Tuchman and actually write an intelligent analysis of what they read, I'm delighted. I quit asking how many students had read a book in the last -- month, three months, 6 months, or year -- because in most of my classes one or maybe two hands would go up and someone would ALWAYS ask if "Cosmopolitan" or "Essence" or another trade magazine counted as a book. Most of my students have never seen live theatre, which I make them attend and write about. They usually thank me for the theatre experience but not for the outside reading. I am blessed this semester with SIX students (out of 28) in my world literature I class that actually know something about some of the things we are reading -- Hallelujah! I'll stop here before I start foaming at the mouth about the state of education in my particular state.

I saw the numerous recommendations for the Western Europe In The Middle Ages 300-1475 and I just want to comment positively about it. That was a textbook for two of my first year college classes on Medieval history, and I've used it in at least four other classes' papers.

Duby has also written The Age of the Cathedrals, which I found to be quite readable. Just, I know that at least one printing has pages where some of the text is clipped off of the sides.

I agree with you that this particular book - if you mean World Lit Only by Fire - sucks. Other than that: whatever, get over it...

my butt can write better than that

Off-topic, but I am so totally stealing that and using it anytime I come across a truly atrocious book, movie, recipe, fashion disaster, etc. :D

Whether it applies to Manchester's book, I can't say, as I've not read it (and, frankly, do not plan to -- too many other medieval books, too little time).

I agree. I wouldn't read A World Lit Only By Fire either. As guernicus mentioned, R.W. Southern's Making of the Middle Ages is good. I'm reading that now. Also, I liked Norman Cantor's Civilization of the Middle Ages.

Steven
http://steventill.com

LOL! #41

Erilario, I wish I understood why I don't like later history (anything after the 13th century). Perhaps it's the sources. Or perhaps I am just drawn to the obscure, but I prefer more 'barbaric' times.

I like renaissance studies too - boy, were there some wacky people around then. Beside the artists and the (in)famous political figures, I'm especially fond of the astrologers, magicians, and alchemists. It's only because of the abundance of source material for that period in general that we know about them (and not much about their colleagues in earlier centuries).

Just saying: it has its charms too.

Re #51: Oh, the Renaissance can be interesting, too, but it still looks "modern" from a 13th-century stance 8-)

What really bothers me is a reference to something as a "historical novel" that's set during my lifetime!!!

Oh, I can relate. I often think of Greco-Roman stuff as modern (I like to indulge in pre Old Kingdom Egypt). As for using "only yesterday" as a "historical setting" - don't get me started. %&^#@ whippersnappers ;-)

Some book or other included a comment that some people describe the Renaissance as the "Very Late Middle Ages".

They've got a point. Much of the Italian renaissance took place during what is considered the late middle ages in most of the rest of Europe.

And the English Renaissance was MUCH later.
I also have --somewhere- a German book on art and architecture through several centuries in Germany, and there is no chapter on "the Renaissance" at all. The cultural periods in that book are divided differently and none has that name.

Yeah, that's true too. The very concept of renaissance is tricky. There were several "renaissances" during the middle ages. Erwin Panofsky's "Renaissance and Renascenses in Western Art" - http://www.librarything.com/work/236225 - gives a fascinating view.

But on the other hand, if you're talking about a region that remained outside the greco-roman world you could argue there could not be any renaissance - in the sense of regeneration of classical culture - at all, since it would rather be "first contact".

No historian takes that bit of Manchester trash the least bit seriously. It is warmed-over regurgitation of 19th-century Whig history. Imagine! To write a history and use decades-old books by such as Will Durant and even earlier writers as sources! Manchester puts a lot of lipstick (his engaging writing style) on that pig.

I would much recommend Malcolm Barber's The Two Cities: Medieval Europe, 1050-1320 (2nd edition, 2004). http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000SH37XC/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539...

Warren Hollister is also generally reliable.

If you are interested in medieval cultural history, give Jacques LeGoff a try.

I have a review of Manchester on my blog: http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/book-review-a-world-lit-only...

He "emerged cured but feeble, too weak to cope with {...} Churchill", so he tackled the entire middle ages? Bwahaha....

The book's crazy. I understand what he used for source material - I just don't understand how someone would ever think to do that. The Canterbury Tales as historical source material rather as an example of literature? Fabliaux? Goofy.

The book could be used as an object lesson on how NOT to critically examine source material.

"A World Lit Only By Fire" is one of the best phrases I've ever come across and it has become a touchstone of mine. Because of this I made it almost 2/3 through the book before the weight of omissions beat me down. And I know nothing about the Middle Ages except serfs, fiefs, and maybe shire reeves. But great title!

evan1138: How did you get that far? And what on earth about the title lured you in?

At least the Churchill books are good, even if he stopped before Winston's finest hour.

>63 erilarlo: - At least the title's sort of true, unlike Canterbury Tales as anything other than satire (might as well use Saturday Night Live or Mad Magazine as modern historical references). Of course the entire world was lit only by fire until about 1880. It's not like they had fluorescent lights or even Sheldon Cooper's luminescent fish. It's sort of like Manchester knocking Medievals for not travelling very far. Who did before mass transit?

Sorry for reviving this. Every now and then I get a bunch of referrals to my blog from this page and have to see what's going on.