Scan barcode
queenpebbles's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
2.5
Not at all what I was expecting. Very dry. Focuses mainly on medievalists in the 20th century and their work, somewhat shows how that influences our modern government but only briefly touches on why the general public view the medieval ages in a skewed way.
siria's review against another edition
1.0
Having finished this book, I've sat and pondered for a while how best to describe Norman Cantor. Bitter? Egotistical? Historiographically wrongheaded? A raging douchebag? All those terms alone seem somewhat inadequate—perhaps some combination of all of them, with maybe a couple more thrown in.
When I came across this book in a secondhand bookstore, I knew I'd heard of it vaguely before, and the premise sounded very interesting—an exploration of the lives of some key twentieth century historians of the medieval period, examining their contribution to medieval studies and the historiographical context in which they wrote. I wanted to learn more about the history of the field in which I worked, and hey, it was only $3. (If only I'd mentioned the name to a professor of mine before I shelled out those three bucks—she practically spat on hearing the title. I could have spent the money on something else.)
I will not say that there's nothing useful in this book—I learned some things I hadn't known before, and have a much better sense of the connections between some key figures in the field. However, this is such a nasty, mean-spirited piece of work—a scorched-earth assessment of his colleagues which loudly trumpets Cantor's own intellectual superiority but which displays only a real inferiority of mind. Cantor was a Princeton grad and a Rhodes Scholar, but seemed to fancy himself as an establishment outsider, out to get back at The Man with Inventing the Middle Ages. The resulting book is a hatchet job which relies on dubious evidence and spurious attempts at understanding scholars' writing through incoherent psychoanalysis. Cantor seemingly despises historians of women's, Jewish, Islamic or African-American history—they are partisan ideologues, he declares, incapable of doing good work. (For white heterosexual male scholars, of course, can never engage in identity politics.) Only one female historian appears among the 27 discussed here, and even then Eileen Power is confined to a few pages in the last chapter, headed 'Outriders.'
Cantor's contextualisation of medieval history for the general reader does not make this book worth reading (it's often incorrect or woefully outdated; he clung to a conservative historiography long after it had been demonstrated to be false), nor does his turgid, adjective-laden prose. (If I had a nickel for every time he talked about a historian from Paris as a 'French mandarin', I'd probably recoup the cost of this book.) Even the bibliography at the end of 125 core books for anyone with an interest in medieval studies is laden with picks that are outdated or bizarre—what on earth is Barbara Tuchman's work doing there? Not to mention that, despite Cantor's lofty reassurances that this list has been double-checked against Princeton's (well!) own card catalogue, the reader is directed towards the work of Henri 'Pierenne', while Dáibhí Ó Cróinín becomes Dalbhi O. Cronin.
By the end, I was quite glad to see that Cantor was dismissive—actually downright offensive—about the founder of my own particular doctoral lineage. Praise from Cantor, I fear, would have been quite the indictment against his scholarship. A nasty, sneering, condescending work. Avoid.
When I came across this book in a secondhand bookstore, I knew I'd heard of it vaguely before, and the premise sounded very interesting—an exploration of the lives of some key twentieth century historians of the medieval period, examining their contribution to medieval studies and the historiographical context in which they wrote. I wanted to learn more about the history of the field in which I worked, and hey, it was only $3. (If only I'd mentioned the name to a professor of mine before I shelled out those three bucks—she practically spat on hearing the title. I could have spent the money on something else.)
I will not say that there's nothing useful in this book—I learned some things I hadn't known before, and have a much better sense of the connections between some key figures in the field. However, this is such a nasty, mean-spirited piece of work—a scorched-earth assessment of his colleagues which loudly trumpets Cantor's own intellectual superiority but which displays only a real inferiority of mind. Cantor was a Princeton grad and a Rhodes Scholar, but seemed to fancy himself as an establishment outsider, out to get back at The Man with Inventing the Middle Ages. The resulting book is a hatchet job which relies on dubious evidence and spurious attempts at understanding scholars' writing through incoherent psychoanalysis. Cantor seemingly despises historians of women's, Jewish, Islamic or African-American history—they are partisan ideologues, he declares, incapable of doing good work. (For white heterosexual male scholars, of course, can never engage in identity politics.) Only one female historian appears among the 27 discussed here, and even then Eileen Power is confined to a few pages in the last chapter, headed 'Outriders.'
Cantor's contextualisation of medieval history for the general reader does not make this book worth reading (it's often incorrect or woefully outdated; he clung to a conservative historiography long after it had been demonstrated to be false), nor does his turgid, adjective-laden prose. (If I had a nickel for every time he talked about a historian from Paris as a 'French mandarin', I'd probably recoup the cost of this book.) Even the bibliography at the end of 125 core books for anyone with an interest in medieval studies is laden with picks that are outdated or bizarre—what on earth is Barbara Tuchman's work doing there? Not to mention that, despite Cantor's lofty reassurances that this list has been double-checked against Princeton's (well!) own card catalogue, the reader is directed towards the work of Henri 'Pierenne', while Dáibhí Ó Cróinín becomes Dalbhi O. Cronin.
By the end, I was quite glad to see that Cantor was dismissive—actually downright offensive—about the founder of my own particular doctoral lineage. Praise from Cantor, I fear, would have been quite the indictment against his scholarship. A nasty, sneering, condescending work. Avoid.
danabentley's review against another edition
3.0
I was expecting more analysis of the medieval period, but this could easily have been entitled "Medieval Historians I Have Known". Lots of detail of the individual historians ratherthan of the history. That being said I still learned a few things from this book about the medieval period and the early 20th century.
gobblebook's review
3.0
Full of good information about major medieval historians and their contributions to the field, and how their personal lives affected their understanding of history. However, Norman Cantor has a tendency to get carried away and make really broad overgeneralizations or exaggerations, and I never quite trust him. This book is full of Cantor's assessments of historians' works and personalities, and his view isn't always the generally-accepted view. This book is a good starting point, but should be followed with some further reading to get a better-rounded view.
Addendum: Since I originally read this book, I have overheard some other medievalists discussing it, many of whom were Cantor's students or knew him personally. Apparently his career was initially very promising, but he then got stuck in the mire of academic administration and never fulfilled his early promise. This made him bitter. He was prone to exaggeration, and some claim that he outright made up some of the information in this book (as well as information in his own autobiography). This reinforces my earlier conclusion that this is an interesting book, but should not be trusted wholeheartedly.
apworden's review
3.0
Informative and eye-opening about how manmade our visions of the past truly are and how alive historical study truly is. I have little background in medievalist studies so much of this flew over my head. However, I can pick up on the over use of outdated Freudian psychoanalysis when the author describes and contemplates the actions of these historians. It's annoying and makes me question much of what is written, however there is no doubt that the insider knowledge the author provides is invaluable and his personal anecdotes were the best part of this book.
readingthroughthelists's review against another edition
2.0
I knew this book and I were not going to be friends at Chapter 1, where Cantor reduces all of the early Middle Ages (my area of study and interest) to a period of backward barbarism, especially when compared with the gloriously advanced 12th century (and onward). If you want me to dislike a book, just un-ironically refer to the years 500-1000 as "the Dark Ages." grrr...
As for the later chapters, I definitely learned some new names and was able to connect those names to big traditions in history and historiographical writing. I'm a lit person myself, so the actual discipline of history is pretty new to me, and it was handy to get a grounding in who's-who and what's what--like seeing a star lineup of the heavy-hitters in the field. I even think Cantor's premise--that historians interpret history based on the modern ideologies and philosophies that have shaped them--is probably correct, and has interesting applications outside medieval studies.
But Cantor's ego keeps intruding into the book (everyone I know labels it 'gossipy') in the form of snide comments and some sexism as well. Curiously, Cantor's awareness of personal bias in reading history seems to end before he gets to himself...
2 stars.
As for the later chapters, I definitely learned some new names and was able to connect those names to big traditions in history and historiographical writing. I'm a lit person myself, so the actual discipline of history is pretty new to me, and it was handy to get a grounding in who's-who and what's what--like seeing a star lineup of the heavy-hitters in the field. I even think Cantor's premise--that historians interpret history based on the modern ideologies and philosophies that have shaped them--is probably correct, and has interesting applications outside medieval studies.
But Cantor's ego keeps intruding into the book (everyone I know labels it 'gossipy') in the form of snide comments and some sexism as well. Curiously, Cantor's awareness of personal bias in reading history seems to end before he gets to himself...
2 stars.
More...