Question: Manchester's "World Lit Only By Fire"
Elijah
I realize this is an older work by publishing standards, but I've heard
recently that William Manchester's "A World Lit Only By Fire" is considered
a questionable source for an overview of medieval Europe. Personally, I
enjoyed the book and found some of his observations interesting, but
perhaps that's just me. Could someone please tell me why this text is not
highly considered? I know Manchester is not a medievalist, but I don't
believe that's the sole reason for a dislike of the book. Is it?
Donald Tucker
IIRC it was an expanded version of an introduction to a book about
Magellan. Some of the more glaring errors are the discussion of the
c. 1500 Borgias, which perpetuate old legends without checking the
facts. A long ways below the standards of his other books.
Donald ___,__<@~__,___ World history; Alternate history;
/^/^/^[#]^\^\^\ Maps; Civilizations Timelines; pinyin;
Pteranodon logo _/|\_ at:
Copyright 1996 " " © http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
Richardweb
I haven't read Manchester's book -- one of the reasons is that I am so put off
by the implications of the title, _A World Lit Only By Fire_. One suspects that
Manchester is going to take a dim view of that world.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
richa...@aol.com
Stargrazer
The book is very good. I have read it several times. And
knowing what I do from my independ studies, it fills in gaps in my
understanding.
The book starts out be setting the world up in depth to
explain the character of Magellian (sp?), the first around the world
explorer. But goes in depth into the social structure and historical
events for over a hundred years leading up to the explorer.
The part most interesting is the corruption in Rome (the
church). Documented assination and adultry inside the Church of Rome.
<------------Stargrazer
* the Lost Traveler of Cyberspace
where adventure is the
name of the game
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
> highly considered? I know Manchester is not a medievalist, but I don't
> believe that's the sole reason for a dislike of the book. Is it?
Manchester relies heavily on older sources like the Durants' _Age of Faith_
which are no longer (if they were ever) considered reliable sources.
He shows signs of having read about the Middle Ages, but without much
understanding, so that he makes statements such as "the capital sins were
punishable by death"--confuting the modern definition of "capital punishment"
with its use in "capital sins" (that is, the most important/most serious
ones).
He is also clearly trying to set up the Middle Ages as an age of ignorance
in comparison to the sudden enlightenment he portrays as typical of the
Renaissance, ignoring at least fifty years of scholarship showing that
the transition to the Renaissance was long and gradual. Essentially,
his view is that of Burckhardt, who wrote towards the end of the 19th century
and whose work is seminal in the study of the Renaissance, but has long
been superseded.
Essentially, as has been pointed out, this is a book about Magellan,
and the chapters which stick to that topic are respectable. However,
Manchester goes too far and tries to portray Magellan as a "man of his
age", which means he has to use the Middle Ages as a foil in order
to demonstrate the "revolutionary' nature of Magellan and the whole
Renaissance.
The result is an introductory two chapters filled with the kind of howlers
one sees often in undergrad "Western Civ" essays, where the author's lack
of wider reading and utter reliance on the sources which are used are
betrayed.
Cheers--
Susan Carroll-Clark