Scan barcode
munterstrichjohn's review
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Before diving into my criticism of the book, I'd like to stress the fact I still had a good time reading it and think it is an important work of scholarship. I had only ever heard of Alessandro de' Medici as a cruel and ruthless tyrant, so this portrayal of him was quite eye opening. Additionally, Fletchers biography is an important piece of reflection of this historical figure, who, as the last chapter of the book shows, has so often been pushed into a corner based on racist ideas and an uncritical approach to the sources written by his enemies.
That being said, I think Fletcher has some difficulty identifying and catering to her target audience. She greatly cuts down on the political context, presumably to not overwhelm readers new to 16th century Italian history, but leaves out so much information along the way that I can't help but wonder if someone without background knowledge will be able to follow the events and why certain things are taking place. She keeps her sentences short and language fairly simple as to make her statements unambiguous, but thus creates a book lacking a narrative component almost entirely, which might make it boring for some readers.
Unfortunately, this briefness and simplification of historical context sometimes leads to factually incorrect statements. On page 135 for example she introduces Filippo Brunelleschi as the "architect of Florence's great cathedral". That is flat out wrong. Brunelleschi was the architect of the dome on top of the cathedral, but most of the building was completed a hundred years before that, most notably by the architects Arnolfo di cambio (who also constructed the Palazzo della Signoria) and Giotto (after whom the bell tower of the cathedral is named). Brunelleschis contribution to the building was vital and a masterpiece of engineering- but he was not the sole architect of the cathedral.
Unfortunately the same issue can be observed in the political spheres the book dives into. For example, one page 145 Fletcher describes the role of king Ferrante of Naples in the aftermath of the pazzi conspiracy, saying that "only thanks to the King of Naples [...] did the Medici regain power in florence." This too is at best a misrepresentation of the situation and at worst factually incorrect. The king of Naples fought in the pazzi war on the side of pope sixtus IV, against florence and the medici. The "support" Fletcher is probably referring to is that he finally agreed to leave said war after long negotiations with Lorenzo de medici, which forced the pope to end the war entirely. Calling this "support" however is far fetched. Also, this was not what actually got the medici back into power after the assassination attempt in the cathedral: The medici regained control in florence just hours later, had most of the conspirators executed immediately and pushed through government reforms that tightened their grip on Florentine politics, as well as exiling many of their political opponents. In the ensuing war with the Pope and Naples Florence did not do well and it would likely have ended in disaster had Lorenzo not negotiated the deal with King Ferrante, but despite of this and the interdict put on the city a majority of the populace remained loyal to the Medici. Ferrantes "support" wasn't the one determining factor that allowed the medici to regain power in florence, because the treaty was only made in 1480 and the medici had already regained control in April 1478.
Unfortunately, the book frequently stumbles in this way, and I can only assume that it is due to the briefness in which this historical context is told. This will frustrate readers with knowledge of the period and will misinform readers new to the topic. Thus, it is hard to take fletchers explanations at face value, which is why reading the book was not the most satisfying experience for me. Still, I enjoyed a lot of it, and think it is a timely and important book. The factual errors however are infuriating, which is why I'd recommend anyone new to the topic to read about the historical context in other works first and gain some background knowledge before diving into this book.
(Regarding the pages I referenced, I read a different version than the one on Storygraph, so the pages might differ. They can be found in chapters 15 and at the very end of chapter 16).
That being said, I think Fletcher has some difficulty identifying and catering to her target audience. She greatly cuts down on the political context, presumably to not overwhelm readers new to 16th century Italian history, but leaves out so much information along the way that I can't help but wonder if someone without background knowledge will be able to follow the events and why certain things are taking place. She keeps her sentences short and language fairly simple as to make her statements unambiguous, but thus creates a book lacking a narrative component almost entirely, which might make it boring for some readers.
Unfortunately, this briefness and simplification of historical context sometimes leads to factually incorrect statements. On page 135 for example she introduces Filippo Brunelleschi as the "architect of Florence's great cathedral". That is flat out wrong. Brunelleschi was the architect of the dome on top of the cathedral, but most of the building was completed a hundred years before that, most notably by the architects Arnolfo di cambio (who also constructed the Palazzo della Signoria) and Giotto (after whom the bell tower of the cathedral is named). Brunelleschis contribution to the building was vital and a masterpiece of engineering- but he was not the sole architect of the cathedral.
Unfortunately the same issue can be observed in the political spheres the book dives into. For example, one page 145 Fletcher describes the role of king Ferrante of Naples in the aftermath of the pazzi conspiracy, saying that "only thanks to the King of Naples [...] did the Medici regain power in florence." This too is at best a misrepresentation of the situation and at worst factually incorrect. The king of Naples fought in the pazzi war on the side of pope sixtus IV, against florence and the medici. The "support" Fletcher is probably referring to is that he finally agreed to leave said war after long negotiations with Lorenzo de medici, which forced the pope to end the war entirely. Calling this "support" however is far fetched. Also, this was not what actually got the medici back into power after the assassination attempt in the cathedral: The medici regained control in florence just hours later, had most of the conspirators executed immediately and pushed through government reforms that tightened their grip on Florentine politics, as well as exiling many of their political opponents. In the ensuing war with the Pope and Naples Florence did not do well and it would likely have ended in disaster had Lorenzo not negotiated the deal with King Ferrante, but despite of this and the interdict put on the city a majority of the populace remained loyal to the Medici. Ferrantes "support" wasn't the one determining factor that allowed the medici to regain power in florence, because the treaty was only made in 1480 and the medici had already regained control in April 1478.
Unfortunately, the book frequently stumbles in this way, and I can only assume that it is due to the briefness in which this historical context is told. This will frustrate readers with knowledge of the period and will misinform readers new to the topic. Thus, it is hard to take fletchers explanations at face value, which is why reading the book was not the most satisfying experience for me. Still, I enjoyed a lot of it, and think it is a timely and important book. The factual errors however are infuriating, which is why I'd recommend anyone new to the topic to read about the historical context in other works first and gain some background knowledge before diving into this book.
(Regarding the pages I referenced, I read a different version than the one on Storygraph, so the pages might differ. They can be found in chapters 15 and at the very end of chapter 16).
meabird's review
Way too much information about so many other people. It feels like a slog, not the history book for me
its_a_complit_way_of_life's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
tense
medium-paced
4.0
siria's review
informative
medium-paced
3.5
Catherine Fletcher's The Black Prince is a history of early sixteenth-century Florence as centered around the career of its first duke: Alessandro de' Medici. Fletcher does a good job in wringing as much information and personality as can be gleaned from the sometimes fragmented source base, and in bringing to life the whirl of Renaissance Florence. Alessandro's reign was a short one though—he was assassinated when only in his mid-20s—and much of the interest of his career has to come from the "what if?" of it all. This, combined with the fact that what general/historiographical interest Alessandro has attracted in the last two centuries or so has tended to centre around the question of whether or not he was mixed race, made me feel like Fletcher missed a trick in writing a fairly standard history of Medici Florence rather than a book which dealt as much with his cultural legacy as it did with the events of Alessandro's life.
musubi_mumma's review
informative
tense
fast-paced
4.0
Let me preface this review by saying that I believe academic scholarship should always be written with a priority for accessibility: the language should be evocative and immersive, perhaps even bordering on fiction, without sacrificing nuance and academic details. Histories in particular are tasked with chronological transport; it is my belief that they should do this without requiring a maximal effort on the part of the reader.
Fletcher’s The Black Prince does all this, and with an ease that belies the hard work of writing. The Black Prince sends the reader back in time so effortlessly; the reader can feel the tension of the Florentine court, the potential for danger at every meal (poison) and around every corner (gangs of rich young men armed with daggers and arrogant tempers).
The Black Prince is academic writing for a general audience done right.
The Black Prince ostensibly revolves around Alessandro de’ Medici, the half African, half Florentine illegitimate son of a Medici scion (though which one is a matter of debate in this work); however, it also about much more than that. This history offers the reader a velvet texture of Renaissance Europe through vivid accounts of the intricate Habsburg, Vatican, French, and Florentine connections via marriage, money, and ambition.
That said, race is less of a category of analysis here than is class, religion, or aristocratic birth. This is no shade on Fletcher’s work; The Black Prince makes the profound point that race — as we understand it — was not an analogous factor in this period of time, in this Renaissance world. Indeed, it was class, religion, aristocratic birth, wealth, and connections which were the more influential factors in matrices of power. “Race” did exist, but functioned and featured in aristocratic society very differently than it would a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years later.
Fletcher does take us through the span of Alessandro’s life; the book is bookended by his birth and death and includes all the major events of his life and that of his domain, Florence, in his lifetime; but this is a work about the Renaissance and the politics of the Apennine peninsula in this period.
Fletcher’s The Black Prince does all this, and with an ease that belies the hard work of writing. The Black Prince sends the reader back in time so effortlessly; the reader can feel the tension of the Florentine court, the potential for danger at every meal (poison) and around every corner (gangs of rich young men armed with daggers and arrogant tempers).
The Black Prince is academic writing for a general audience done right.
The Black Prince ostensibly revolves around Alessandro de’ Medici, the half African, half Florentine illegitimate son of a Medici scion (though which one is a matter of debate in this work); however, it also about much more than that. This history offers the reader a velvet texture of Renaissance Europe through vivid accounts of the intricate Habsburg, Vatican, French, and Florentine connections via marriage, money, and ambition.
That said, race is less of a category of analysis here than is class, religion, or aristocratic birth. This is no shade on Fletcher’s work; The Black Prince makes the profound point that race — as we understand it — was not an analogous factor in this period of time, in this Renaissance world. Indeed, it was class, religion, aristocratic birth, wealth, and connections which were the more influential factors in matrices of power. “Race” did exist, but functioned and featured in aristocratic society very differently than it would a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years later.
Fletcher does take us through the span of Alessandro’s life; the book is bookended by his birth and death and includes all the major events of his life and that of his domain, Florence, in his lifetime; but this is a work about the Renaissance and the politics of the Apennine peninsula in this period.
lukeg's review against another edition
boooooooooooooring. i got about 39 pages in before i gave up. the story is probably interesting but it bounces around so much and i just can't bring myself to care.
More...