Rosamond McKitterick

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2371982.html

As you know, Bob, I spent a lot of time reading The Decline and Fall of he Roman Empire a few years back, and it certainly made me a Gibbon fan. This is a collection of essays from a conference commemorating the 200th anniversary of his death, in 1994, concentrating on the second half of the great work. Most of them are solid contributions, acknowledging Gibbon's pioneering genius on a particular topic, noting also his flaws, and updating us on how show more scholarship has moved on since. There were a few that stood out for me.

- Anthony Bryer, writing on Gibbon and the later Byzantine Empire, treats us to an entertaining stream of consciousness ("When I am introduced at wine and cheese parties as a Byzantinist, people still ask me whether we have yet overcome the bad press given by Gibbon, before turning on their heel") and ends with a quote from Iggy Pop.

- Rosamund McKittrick, one of the editors, looks at the eighteenth century's ideas about the period Gibbon was writing about before he started publishig, which takes her into a fascinating exploration of musical theatre. (Did you know that "Rule Britannia" was originally the closing number of an opera about King Alfred?)

- And the other editor, Roland Quinault, looks at Gibbon's direct influence on Winston Churchill, which is one of those things that once pointed out seems pretty obvious - not just the rhetorical technique, but also certain political themes, including Churchill's concept of European unity which was surely inspired by Gibbon's General Observations.

Well worth getting hold of for us Gibbon fans. show less

Atlas of the Medieval World is not bad for a “coffee table book”. Divided into 700-1000 AD, 1000-1300 AD, and 1300-1500 AD sections, with a summary map at the head of each, and with the usual pretty pictures of castles, illuminated manuscripts, etc. The thing I like about it is that it really covers the mediaeval world, not just mediaeval Europe (although, as you might expect, most of the emphasis is on Europe). Thus we get a lot of nice maps of places I’d never heard of: the 8-10th show more century kingdom of Salendra on Java, the central Asian Ghurid empire, the Aq Qoyunlu empire of Iran, and a nice explanation of the difference between the Almoravids and the Almohads. Although I had heard, of course, of the Ottomans, I had the incorrect idea that they originated in central Asia like other Turkish groups, so I was surprised to see a map showing their original core territory in northwestern Anatolia, from which they spread to conquer most of the Middle East and a good chunk of Europe. Not bad for footstools.

Since I’ve been reading about medieval Russia recently, it was welcome to find a map showing the growth of the principality of Moscow (at the expense of Ryazan and Novgorod) and another map showing the details of the Polish-Lithuanian-Livonian territory. If there’s a flaw, it’s that the book can’t quite make up it’s mind if it’s an atlas or a travelog: too many pretty pictures at the expense of more maps. Some of the textual material that accompanies the maps is useful, however; basic histories, the genealogy of Chingis Khan, and a nice table of medieval exchange rates (how many Castilian marvedi to a Florentine florin). I also note that the New World is missing; the authors explain that the Olmecs, Toltecs, Maya, and so on are in the Ancient History atlas, not the Medieval one. Probably culturally appropriate if not chronologically. I think I’d go as high as four and a half stars with this one. show less

Well, I guess it's helpful as a quick guide, but their is a terrible lack of correlation between the text, the images, and the maps. In many cases, the geographical locations discussed in the text (even in the title of a section) is not indicated on the associated map!

This work appears to be a collection of short pieces on various areas and times, with the associated maps being whatever Oxford University Press (OUP) had laying around for that period. Often, the main focus of the map is show more unrelated to the main focus of the text. Often, the spelling of a place name in the text differs from that on the map (they may both be correct, but the lack of consistency makes the use of the maps and text together more difficult, and further implies that the maps were not generated to support the text, or vice-versa).

The maps alone may be useful, and the text alone may be useful, but you'll often go crazy trying to find a label on the map showing the area being discussed in the text. For example, the two maps in the section entitled "The Delhi Sultanate and the Vijayanagara India" indicate neither the location of the Delhi Sultinate nor that of the Vijayanagara empire.

The captions to images sometimes fail to even identify what the image is (e.g., a work of art with no reference to the artist or period or source).

In one example, the page of text primarily discussing the Swiss Confederation (1300-1500) holds a figure related to Burgundy and a map (facing) of "Burgundy under Charles the Bold". Turn the page, and you find text primarily discussing Burgundy (1300-1500) with a map of "The Swiss Confederation" and a painting showing Burghers of the Swiss Confederation city of Lucerne being sworn in.

On top of all this, there are far more typos than one would expect from OUP. Though many are minor (odd or missing punctuation, single letter misspellings, etc), the frequency indicates sloppy proof-reading.

Bottom line - it appears that OUP rushed this one out; throwing in whatever maps covered the area and time period of the text; a quick proof read; but not much more. Even so, each individual section does contain a good textual overview, and the maps (considered as stand-alone references) can be useful for the purpose for which they were originally drafted.

Os. show less

Professor McKitterick has written a synthesis of Charlemagne’s reign. That is, she has not set out to write a biography, but rather to examine anew the original sources, carefully delimiting what we know from what we assume. She demonstrates that some of our assumptions are based on the later years of Charlemagne’s long rule, which we then project back to the early years.

In the author’s view, Charlemagne was concerned to unite his new empire. Relations with the papacy, including the show more crowning in 800, the insistence on new, proper texts of the sacred books, the obsession with orthodoxy and the command to extend Christian principles into daily life helped to create a consistent view of the empire. These measures also helped draw in the various peoples of the empire into a common identity.

Some of the author’s views are contentious, but surely she is right to argue that Carolingian conquests were a matter of opportunity and family matters, rather than a program of conquering. The exception here is the sustained campaigns that lead to the eventual conquest of the Saxons and their conversion to Christianity.

Along the way, Professor McKitterick also discusses the evidence for an itinerant kingship, a travelling court, and the existence of a royal scriptorium. She shows how a reliance on written texts helped the missi dominici to administer justice, helped the king to communicate with his subjects, and helped ensure uniform religious observances. show less