Rufus
06-18-2004, 20:04
I just finished The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era by Norman Cantor, and thought I'd post a quick review for the Org.
I'd recommend it on the whole: It's a quick, breezy read, yet I still feel I learned quite a bit from it. The book examines the life and times of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and son of Edward III. The author uses Gaunt as a prism to view the transitional times at which he lived, when the political, military, economic, religious and other trends of the Middle Ages were giving way to the Renaissance.
Gaunt was the picture of the late medieval knight: he lived and breathed the code of chivalry, he adored his wives and mistresses, he thrived on the thrill of battle, he patronized troubadours and poets. Cantor devotes most of the book to explaining how Gaunt struggled to cope with the emerging early modern ethos: sometimes with interest, but often with reluctance, and varying degrees of success.
For example, Gaunt acknowledged the growing role of Parliament, including the Commons, in England's public affairs and contributed to it through his repeated funding requests to Parliament for his wars in France and Spain. He resented having to go to the Commons for money but decided to play the hand he was dealt. After he was rebuffed by one Parliament, Gaunt tried to manage the election of a more sympathetic one.
Gaunt could see political trouble on the horizon with the controversies of the reign of his nephew, Richard II. But he supported Richard dutifully because of a strong belief in the traditional succession of the monarchy. Cantor argues that Gaunt would've been horrified had he lived to see his son Henry depose and murder Richard.
In the religious realm, Cantor paints a picture of Gaunt as a man initially interested in new ideas but one unwilling to embrace their full implementation. He was an early patron of John Wyclif but backed away from the cleric as his preaching took a more radical turn.
Similarly, in the arts, Gaunt was a patron and close associate of Geoffrey Chaucer and enjoyed Chaucer's early work. But the more radical implications of the humanism in Chaucer's later works such as The Canterbury Tales prompted Gaunt to distance himself from England's most renowned medieval poet.
The major substantive problem I have with Cantor's analysis is in the last chapter, in which Cantor attempts to put Gaunt in a broad historical context. He argues that although the world around the aristocracy changed considerably the centuries following the Middle Ages, the mindset of aristocrats and the nature of aristocracy - conspicuous consumption, inherited wealth, social and economic isolation - haven't changed that much since then in Europe (or, later, America).
I found that to be a vast oversimplification and, frankly, wrong. In the Middle Ages, it was virtually impossible for a peasant to join the ranks of the aristocracy. Perhaps within a few generations, a family may improve their economic standing to the point where they could marry into a noble family, but it took many decades. Today, there are innumerable examples of "self-made" men and women. Today, it's far more possible to create wealth than it was in medieval times. Although it's quite difficult and arguably uncommon, it's still far more possible for one to rise from poverty to wealth in today's world through education and opportunity than it was in medieval times (as I write this, I can't believe this point actually has to be made). This is true in the economic realm (Lee Iaococca, Bill Gates) as in the political (Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan). Of course, there are still many examples of modern-day "aristocrats" or "blue bloods" running major companies and holding political office, but they are far from dominant. The United States has had roughly half its Presidents come from modest circumstances, and half from privilege. Moreover, many "aristocrats" of the post-medieval era embrace ideas that would not fit into the mindset of the medieval nobleman. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were men of privilege, wealth and high social standing but embraced ideals that were radical for the time.
Stylistically the book is mostly a pleasure to read and at 250 or so pages, one could breeze through it in one sitting. It did not appear very well-edited, however; I found a couple of instances where a passage virtually repeated itself on one page.
3 1/2 out of 5 stars - worth a read if you have a few hours to kill and an interest in the subject.
Now, on to The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell ...
I'd recommend it on the whole: It's a quick, breezy read, yet I still feel I learned quite a bit from it. The book examines the life and times of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and son of Edward III. The author uses Gaunt as a prism to view the transitional times at which he lived, when the political, military, economic, religious and other trends of the Middle Ages were giving way to the Renaissance.
Gaunt was the picture of the late medieval knight: he lived and breathed the code of chivalry, he adored his wives and mistresses, he thrived on the thrill of battle, he patronized troubadours and poets. Cantor devotes most of the book to explaining how Gaunt struggled to cope with the emerging early modern ethos: sometimes with interest, but often with reluctance, and varying degrees of success.
For example, Gaunt acknowledged the growing role of Parliament, including the Commons, in England's public affairs and contributed to it through his repeated funding requests to Parliament for his wars in France and Spain. He resented having to go to the Commons for money but decided to play the hand he was dealt. After he was rebuffed by one Parliament, Gaunt tried to manage the election of a more sympathetic one.
Gaunt could see political trouble on the horizon with the controversies of the reign of his nephew, Richard II. But he supported Richard dutifully because of a strong belief in the traditional succession of the monarchy. Cantor argues that Gaunt would've been horrified had he lived to see his son Henry depose and murder Richard.
In the religious realm, Cantor paints a picture of Gaunt as a man initially interested in new ideas but one unwilling to embrace their full implementation. He was an early patron of John Wyclif but backed away from the cleric as his preaching took a more radical turn.
Similarly, in the arts, Gaunt was a patron and close associate of Geoffrey Chaucer and enjoyed Chaucer's early work. But the more radical implications of the humanism in Chaucer's later works such as The Canterbury Tales prompted Gaunt to distance himself from England's most renowned medieval poet.
The major substantive problem I have with Cantor's analysis is in the last chapter, in which Cantor attempts to put Gaunt in a broad historical context. He argues that although the world around the aristocracy changed considerably the centuries following the Middle Ages, the mindset of aristocrats and the nature of aristocracy - conspicuous consumption, inherited wealth, social and economic isolation - haven't changed that much since then in Europe (or, later, America).
I found that to be a vast oversimplification and, frankly, wrong. In the Middle Ages, it was virtually impossible for a peasant to join the ranks of the aristocracy. Perhaps within a few generations, a family may improve their economic standing to the point where they could marry into a noble family, but it took many decades. Today, there are innumerable examples of "self-made" men and women. Today, it's far more possible to create wealth than it was in medieval times. Although it's quite difficult and arguably uncommon, it's still far more possible for one to rise from poverty to wealth in today's world through education and opportunity than it was in medieval times (as I write this, I can't believe this point actually has to be made). This is true in the economic realm (Lee Iaococca, Bill Gates) as in the political (Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan). Of course, there are still many examples of modern-day "aristocrats" or "blue bloods" running major companies and holding political office, but they are far from dominant. The United States has had roughly half its Presidents come from modest circumstances, and half from privilege. Moreover, many "aristocrats" of the post-medieval era embrace ideas that would not fit into the mindset of the medieval nobleman. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were men of privilege, wealth and high social standing but embraced ideals that were radical for the time.
Stylistically the book is mostly a pleasure to read and at 250 or so pages, one could breeze through it in one sitting. It did not appear very well-edited, however; I found a couple of instances where a passage virtually repeated itself on one page.
3 1/2 out of 5 stars - worth a read if you have a few hours to kill and an interest in the subject.
Now, on to The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell ...