Customer Reviews

A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance - Portrait of an Age

5 star:		(85)
4 star:		(47)
3 star:		(29)
2 star:		(24)
1 star:		(63)

 

 

Having enjoyed William Manchester's works in the past, and being interested in the material supposedly covered in this book, I was prepared to enjoy A World Lit Only by Fire when I sat down with it. But, as much as I would have liked to, I couldn't.

Manchester states that he's no expert on the period, and neither am I, but even I could see the glaring and seemingly endless number of factual errors throughout the book, not to mention the myths (such as that of "la belle Ferroniere" and Francis I) he presents as fact. The book isn't really even about the Middle Ages, aside from twenty or so pages Manchester devotes to outlining that thousand years of European history. The majority of the book is dedicated to Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe, and a sizable chunk of that is solely concerned with the career of Magellan.

This would be acceptable, of course, if Manchester's "history" wasn't just a rehash of 19th (!) century clichés and stereotypes about the Middle Ages: that is, a Europe composed wholly of mud, blood, sex, torture and ridiculous superstition, utterly worthless and depraved. And although I'm certainly not a fan of the Catholic Church, Manchester's endless cavalcade of largely unsubstantiated potshots at that institution is particularly annoying. If this book was someone's sole source of information on the time period, they'd be excused for thinking that Europe from the fall of Rome to the rediscovery of Classical culture in the Renaissance was pretty much composed of people expiring from sexually transmitted diseases... when they weren't poisoning popes and burning witches, that is.

So, why two stars and not one? A World Lit Only by Fire may be tabloid history, but it could be considered a guilty pleasure if you keep in mind that it's utter nonsense. The portion of the book dedicated to Magellan is also a cut above the rest. Given that the majority of readers will probably be utterly ignorant about this time period, though, it's pretty irresponsible of Manchester to present a bunch of unrelated half-truths and myths as history. He says in his Author's Note--along with various other veiled apologies--that he didn't plan out the writing of this book in advance and it certainly shows.

If you want to read about the time period covered in this book without sacrificing facts for readability (or vice versa), try A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman, the appropriate volumes of The Story of Civilization by Will Durant (The Age of Faith, The Renaissance, and The Reformation) or The Civilization of the Middle Ages by Norman Cantor. They show that reading about this period can be both entertaining and informative, even if there isn't a bloodthirsty, syphilitic twelve year-old bishop on every page.

I read this book when it first appeared, and have since carried pleasant if rather vague memories of it. Rereading it some 16 years later, I'm horrified by how bad it is in places, and wonder what in the world I saw in it the first time around.

The opening section entitled "The Medieval Mind" is especially, embarrassingly, bad. In it, Manchester reduces an entire millennium to a quick and spotty sketch (this must account in part for the vagueness of my memories) which is full of over-generalizations (the medieval world wasn't a bona fide "civilization"), simplifications ("there was no room in the medieval mind for doubt; the possibility of skepticism simply did not exist"), and absolute howlers (medieval peasants went naked in the summer; the medieval mind had no spatial and temporal awareness or self-consciousness).

Less bad--but still bad--are the succeeding two sections, both much longer than the opening one on the medieval period (this, despite the book's subtitle). One of the sections is on the Renaissance and Reformation, the other focuses on Magellan and the European "discovery" of the New World (which Manchester tells us was the germ from which the entire book grew). There are some interesting biographical vignettes in the Renaissance section that probably account for my pleasant memories--Savonarola, da Vinci, and Erasmus in particular--but there's no real effort on Manchester's part to wrestle with the meaning of the new humanism that fueled the Renaissance or to explore the intricacies of the Reform revolt against Rome. Instead, he falls back on tired stereotypes; his long account of Martin Luther is especially hackneyed. Manchester's concluding account of Magellan's voyage, with its brief nod to Renaissance astronomy and the science of navigation, is enthusiastic and lively, and is probably the best--or least bad--part of the book. But again, it's sketchy and breathless.

So what accounts for the remarkable popularity of this book? Its quality should've landed it on the out-of-print shelve long ago. My only guess is that Manchester's well-deserved fame for his contemporaneous histories (WWII, Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur) bestows a borrowed and undeserved aura of authority on this one. But authors (and their agents and editors) really ought to know when they're in over their heads, and refrain from writing bad copy just because they know they can get it published.

"In the Medieval mind, there was also no awareness of time." This breathtakingly ludicrous statement appears on page 22, and it represents everything that is horrifying about this book. (Just for starters, try telling any farmer of any era that he has "no awareness of time" and you'll end up in the manure pile, literally or figuratively.)
Read Regine Pernoud's "Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths" (published in May 2000) or go to the library and pull out the 38-year-old "Horizon book of the Middle Ages" instead. Manchester's vituperation of the era borders on hysteria.

Is this some kind of joke?

As a young man, William Manchester served in WWII. He then pursued a career in journalism, spending time overseas. At some point he shifted to an academic career and compiled, probably in part from experience, biographies of Churchill, McArthur, and J. F. Kennedy -- safe territory for a journalist. His list of works include some fiction and essays; we can surmise that first and foremost, he is a writer, not an analyst, and certainly not a researcher.

As his "Author's Note" reveals, at the age of 70 during a convalesence, he decided to write a "portrait" of the 16th Century as a backdrop to a study of Magellan. In roughly two years he churned out "AWLOBF," notwithstanding the fact that his background in the 16th Century was no more than "the general familiarity of an educated man." As a result, his efforts to deposit ink on paper yielded a work that has an uncanny resemblance to recently used toilet paper.

Anyone should be suspicious of a book that provides firm dates for the death of Arthur and Robin Hood. (Chronology, p. X). Carless mistakes such as misidentifying Grand Duke Ivan III as the first Tsar of Russia (p. 35; Ivan IV (1533-1584) = first Tsar) serve only to shred its credibility.

As Manchester himself states, the book is "a slight work with no scholarly pretensions. All the sources are secondary, few are new. I have not mastered recent scholarship on the early sixteenth century." In fact, turning to his "Acknowledgements and Sources," we find that he gives credit above all to the Will Durant's "Story of Civilization" (ca. 1954) and the Encylopaedia Brittanica. In other words, we are blessed with a careless synthesis of dated general compilations, themselves compiled from dated secondary sources. The lack of attribution makes it impossible to discern the basis for Manchester's vast array of brazen assertions. Further, the engrafting of his "portrait of the age" upon the material concerning Magellan yields a singularly disjointed work.

It is particularly reprehensible that Manchester unquestioningly accepts scholarship that is invariably two or three generations old. The most prominent theme, repeated ad nauseam, is that someone turned the lights out in Europe in the latter part of the 5th Century and it was only through the sudden and blessed intervention of Humanists who re-discovered the ancients in the 15th century that the world was saved from the "Dark Ages." Yes, he liberally applies that hackneyed and questionable term -- to the entire period.

Contradictory evidence such as the writings of Petrarch and Dante are only "lonely execeptions" to the total dearth of anything valuable in the long night that gripped Europe in the rather simple mind of William Manchester. (Augustine, Abelard, Acquinas, Chaucer?) Accordinly, the first 28 pages which purport to summarize the history of the Medieval world should be summarily removed from each copy and thrown away.

Even a cursory review of medieval studies since say, 1950, puts the lie to Manchester's basic premise. (For the story of this development in the 20th C., see Cantor's "Inventing the Middle Ages"). For an Emeritus Professor of History at Wesleyan, the lack of effort is astounding. Any old source is a good source. For example, as to Davis' "Life on a Medieval Barony" (1924!!), he says: "Davis was writing about the thirteenth century, but his picture of a medieval community is valid in depicting the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." How Manchester would know is a mystery. What changes the Black Death (mid-14th C.) might have occasioned must have been just too inconvenient.

As so many have commented, no salacious detail is missed by the priapic pen of Bill "Horndog" Manchester: "lore [always a reliable source!!] has it that he was coupling with the older woman when he was distracted by the sight of her adolescent daughter laying beside them . . . [the passage gets much more graphic from here]"

Dr. Manchester, if he merits that title, has only succeeded in unbuttoning the fabric to expose the withering envy of old age for the sexual potency of youth. Wesleyan should be embarrassed; even casual readers should move on to something more intellectually honest.

Known among medievalists merely as "that book," Manchester's "World Lit Only by Fire" vividly tells a compelling story; the only problem is that the story he tells bears little to no resemblance to the realities of medieval Europe. Manchester gets facts wrong (for instance, being a century off in dating Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales"), commits logical fallacies (for instance, comparing the quality of life of medieval peasants to that of Renaissance lords, and concluding that society as a whole became richer), and seems more interested in writing polemic than history. The reason seems obvious. Manchester, in lionizing Magellan, wishes to make his readers feel good about colonialism, materialism, and European expansionism; in doing so, he must try at all costs to discredit any other form of Western civilization, particularly the insular, spiritually-based outlook of medieval Europe. Manchester's book is not medieval history but colonialist propaganda. If historians were subject to malpractise law, this book would have lost Manchester his license.

Any work of history is bound to have a few errors of fact or interpretation, but "A World Lit Only By Fire" is riddled with astonishing inaccuracies. At one point, Manchester claims that Copernicus was burned at the stake by the Inquisition. In fact, Copernicus died of natural causes (cerebral haemorrhage) in 1543! Publication of his "Book of Revolutions" was actually encouraged by certain Church officials during his lifetime, and the book was not proscribed by the Church until 73 years after it was published. Perhaps Manchester was thinking of Giordano Bruno, or perhaps he was not thinking at all. Another example: His description of John Calvin's bloodthirsty doings relies on heavily biased secondary sources, many of which have been discredited by serious historians. There's no need to bring up further examples, since Manchester himself claims in his introduction that a historian who read the manuscript disagreed with statements on almost every page of this book. It seems safe to assume that Manchester's unwillingness to correct or qualify these statements was the result of his having an axe to grind. If you have even a glancing acquaintance with medieval history, you'll be shocked by Manchester's willful disregard for basic facts. If you're new to the subject and want a good introduction, try Barbara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror" or Norman Cohn's "Pursuit of the Millennium."

This has got to be the single worst book written about the middle ages. Manchester, who is a 20th century historian, seems to be trying to revive long dead scholarship. Most of his sources were bettered long ago. His ideas that the Middle Ages were a vast period of darkness, and only with the coming of the Reniassance (actually to him probably the Reformation and Luther) did it brighten, are so wrong that this book has actually been ridiculed by most historians. The Middle Ages were the birthplace of the 'modern' concepts of Law, Medicine, Government, Education, Christianity, and many others. The Renaissance brought a little better art, a little further exploration. The Reformation brought a new way of looking at Christianity. Neither hold a candle to the bonfire of the Middle Ages. If you want a good solid introduction the the Middle Ages try Painter and Tierney or Hollister. A good Intro for the Renaissance is Burkhardt. And a good intro for the Reformation is Donald Wilcox, or DeLamar Jensen.

One reviewer here, the author of a rather scathing evalutaion, asked that high school students submit their reviews of this book. I'll happily comply (I'm currently a college student, but read 'A World Lit Only By Fire' for the fist time while in high school), though I doubt my review will please her, as I found this book absolutely fascinating, highly enjoyable, and very easy to read. As far as I'm aware, no one else in my AP European History class had trouble with it either.

Rather than detailing events in chronological order as many historical books do, Manchester takes us through subject by subject. Beginning with an explanation of the Medieval mind and how it came to be, Manchester goes on to address every possible aspect of life in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods. In addition to recounting events of historic significance and discussing prominent people of the times, he takes us to the very core of Medieval being, describing in vivid detail the dress, eating habits, beliefs, and living conditions of all classes, from peasantry to nobility. The book closes with a section devoted to the explorer Ferdinand Magellan, telling of his voyage to circumnavigate the globe by which he inadvertantly helped bring about the twilight of an age.

There are some things which set this book apart from the bulk of scholarly historical texts I have read. Perhaps the most unique is its organization. Most historical texts begin at one point in time and continue on, year by year, until they reach the end of the period they are covering. Manchester has done things differently. He does not stick to a chronological line in his writing, but rather begins with one aspect of Medieval life and winds his way back and forth through each topic until everything has been told to satisfaction. Now, such a system might prove choppy if not for Manchester's great skill in weaving topics together. The crossover between one subject and the next is sometimes all but imperceptible. He takes one idea and, when finished with it, shows precisely how it ties in with the next. The writing is seamless. Manchester develops a beautiful literary illustration of the interconnectedness of different aspects of Medieval life. As he himself states in his note at the beginning of the book, "each event [leads] inexorably to another, then another..." (pg. XV).

The organization and fluency of the writing makes this book easy and pleasurable to read, but there is yet another feature which makes 'A World Lit Only By Fire' special. Manchester's tone brings the author to life. It is plain to see that he has his own opinions on what he is writing, and lets them come through with an easy humor that pokes fun at history's idiosyncrasies without being vicious. While one can see that he has some biases (and everyone does), he covers all aspects of an issue without letting his feelings distort it, but still managing to make his opinion known.

It is these characteristics, and a meticulous attention to detail, that separate Manchester's work from the ordinary, cut-and-dried textbook writing we see so often. It draws the reader in just as a novel might. The book is thorough and comprehensive, but the presentation makes it seem almost as if a story is being told. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about life in Medieval Europe.

Upon reading the collection of negative and indignant reviews of _A World Lit Only By Fire_ it seems obvious to me that many readers completely misunderstood Manchester's purpose in writing it. If you are looking to pass a pop quiz on medieval history or to find the standard party line on the Middle Ages, don't look to Manchester's daring piece. If you are interested in an observant, insightful, juicy, and imaginative portrait of the Western World in upheaval, this book certainly qualifies. The book is anything but clinical and objective. That fact has obviously ruffled the feathers of dusty, party-line medieval history buffs who want a 300-page series of facts and dates. But the book's honest subjectivity and willingness to judge the important people of the past are what make it worth reading. Anyone who believes historical writing is anything but the author's opinion about the past is fooling themselves, and at least Manchester does not attempt to cloak his conjecture in a stodgy air of authority. _A World Lit Only By Fire_ is a fascinating and colorful take on the transition from Roman Empire to Renaissance and Reformation, written by a superbly intelligent, articulate, and bold historian. It is not a historical reference manual and does not pretend to be. Hopefully, you wouldn't want to read one of those things, anyway.

The only thing decent about this book is the treatment of Ferdinand Magellan-- but then, I understand the book is an expansion of an article on Magellan that Manchester wrote earlier. He should have stuck with the article, or written a book just on Magellan.

Generally, the book is full of historical views that are outdated, discredited, or just plain without any basis in fact at all. The history of the period has been lumped together into one giant chaotic mass, with little attempt to show change over time. It appears that his main sources for his research were children's history books written before 1950 and Victorian "historical" porno novels.

It was an enjoyable read, in the sense that such novels as "Princess Daisy" are enjoyable, but it is worthless and misleading as a source of actual historical information.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS ONE!