David Nicholas (1) (1939–)

I found this book very instructive, though I doubt I'll remember a tenth of the hard facts in it. Nicholas obviously has a broad understanding of the Middle Ages, and he isn't afraid to lace his prose with dates and names. Nothing wrong with that in a history book, of course. Nicholas divides the Middle Ages into three parts, Early, Middle, and Late, and he gives a fairly good overview of each period, focusing more on society and the economy than most history books of the 70s did (well, show more that's what he claims, anyway). I found the text a bit dry at times, but maybe that's a good sign in a scholarly book. It could have been a bit more engaging, but Nicholas does attempt to give an idea of daily life, technology, and popular culture.

Nicholas does make some statements concerning the literature of the Middle Ages that I found a little condescending. He for instance dismisses the Italian 'humanist' movement (which included Petrarch among its proponents) after Dante as a 'manuscript-hunting craze', and calls the Italian Renaissance of the late Middle Ages 'a stillborn creation in most respects'. He also says of northern Europe (including England, with Chaucer and Langland) that the 'fourteenth century is a period of increased individuality, although not better quality, in art and literature...' (p.267). I think my problem with this is that Nicholas isn't really an expert in these fields, and he basically flings out misguided generalisations about the art and literature of the time. That makes me worry that Nicholas's generalisations about other aspects (of which I know comparatively little) might also be misguided.

On the whole, I found the book informative and accurate as far as dates and information that I could check up went. show less