What did you just read?

Those Terrible Middle Ages! Debunking the Myths by Regine Pernoud

A short but dense book which tackles certain myths that modern people believe about the medieval ages. Very interesting. I studied history in college but never focused on the medieval era and it turns out most of what I believed was completely false.

I will include some of the interesting things that Pernoud writes about...

First she tackles the idea that they never built anything well or created beautiful art. They did indeed built various churches and strongholds (in the Romanesque style) that combined both a utilitarian function and a style. This reveals the "substance over form" spirit that runs through the medieval age and stands in contrast with the 'classical' mindset that triumphant aesthetic over all. Structures were built to show the 'unseen' world that hides behind the world that we can see and hear.

Additionally the medieval age saw the creation of novels (the romantic epic), illuminated manuscripts, the musical scale and the clock. Theater productions were also widespread, being put on and enjoyed by the common people. These stories were often dramatization of the Gospel stories.

Moving away from culture to politics... the Classical Era in Ancient Greece was one of concentrated power in cities. The Medieval Era in Europe saw the de-centralization of power from the city to the rural strongholds of knights. In the early medieval era there were kings but they were lords like any others and their role was more moral than rooted in military power. The King was simply the lord that the other lords trusted to make the right decision if a problem rose up between them. It was a moral role.

Furthermore, the Medieval Era saw the end of slavery. There were serfs but a serf is not a slave. A serf had more rights such as the right to marry, to buy a house, to pass his inheritance down to his children, to enter a trade. He could not leave his land, but he could not be removed from it. His lord also did not have the power of life and death over him.

Such a society operated on 'customs' and not 'laws.' The idea of one body of law comes from Ancient Greece was used to solidify power under a central institution (a Monarch). This we do not see until the later medieval era. The creation of a codex of laws and the collection of power in the State led directly to end of the Medieval Era.

Custom is the social code agreed upon (unconsciously most like) between people. It is just what is right and it doesn't need to be written down. Once laws were collected they were used by the State as tools of power (though the intentions might have been right in the beginning).

From politics to social issues... Women in classical times were the property of their husbands and fathers. It was not so in the Medieval Era. A woman could join a convent and get a fine education, she could enter a trade, own property and vote in both urban and rural assemblies. She didn't have power over her marriage partner but neither did her husband (marriages were arranged by parents).

And finally the church... For the first 2/3 of the medieval era the Church had no secular power. The Church operated on a moral authority. When it sought out heresy it very rarely burned anyone, instead sending them off to pilgrimages or having them wear a special insignia on their clothing. Again there was no law. People listened to the church because they believed in the truth of the Gospel (their custom) and the church was the champion of that truth.

It wasn't until monarchs wrestled with the church for the right to appoint bishops (and won) that the church became morally bankrupt. Church officers became mouth pieces of the State. They used their religious education and teachings to uphold a law. Heretics were often people who undermined State authority and were burned for shallow 'religious' infractions.

----

A short synopsis but one I wrote for I found this book very interesting.

I do have some problems with the translation. I needed quite a bit more work. Some sentences I needed to re-read several times before I understood what it was trying to say.

Regina Peroud seems to be a legit scholar, so I take what she says on faith. The result is a new look at Classical Greece (I don't like it) and a new look at Medieval Europe. Why can't we have decentralized powers and agrarian societies nowadays? I am more and more convinced that the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution were mistakes.

The Night Lords Omnibus. Been a couple of years since I've read any sci-fi and specifically, 40k. It was a fun read and an interesting perspective since it was about traitor marines, instead of the good guys. The author did a good job of making the character relatable and likable, despite their goals. The character's perspective on how things played out makes sense.

Sure wish Abnett would write again.

Kajiimagi said:

War of the roses - Stormbirds. Historical fiction by Conn Iggulden. It was just OK. I got more out of looking up the actual events than reading the book. Writing style was fine , it just seemed to be dragged out as he wanted to write multiple books as a series.

Click to expand...

I read his book on Genghis Khan and this is what I would say. Strong OKAY.

It's like he finds these interesting ideas and then he draws them out to the point of boredom. He needs to learn how to up the pace. Going slow is fine when you have some deep contemplations to do like Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian.

Speaking of McCarthy I read the first 40 pages of his new book The Passenger.

It was terrible. I couldn't get any further it was so bad. Like fan fiction you'd read on some forum in the early 2000s. Dude is 89 and has clearly lost his touch. Damn shame.

Kajiimagi said:

I must be a heathen, I could not get into Blood Meridian at all.

Click to expand...

I think I know why. It's written in a very alien style. Not English syntax at all but something like the original Hebrew of the Old Testament.

"The man got down from the horse and took from the boot holster a rifle and aimed the thing at the Indianos coming up over the ridge and they went down in an explosion of gore their blood splayed out over the ground like the artistry of some insane god painted upon the ground."

It can make for epic writing, like the description of the army of horribles in the first few chapters. He is imitating Faulkner, I believe, but when you read Faulkner you get lost halfway through the sentence and have to reread it to understand what the man is saying.

Kajiimagi said:

I must be a heathen, I could not get into Blood Meridian at all.

Click to expand...