The Middle Ages Paperback – Illustrated, May 15, 2017

The Middle AgesJohannes Fried, translated from the German by Peter LewisIf one loves facts, this book provides a super abundance. The author, a retired professor at the University of Frankfurt, Germany, aims to show that what has long been called “the Middle Ages” and frequently portrayed as a thousand years of darkness between the classical world of the Greeks and Romans and the brilliant rebirth of culture and intellect in the Renaissance was in fact a period of seminal intellectual, scientific, artistic, institutional, and managerial growth. The abundance of facts, in my view, totally makes the point. Unfortunately, the facts are like the pieces of a great projected mosaic largely scattered at seeming random and only occasionally fitted together in coherent pictures. A brief comment on the dust jacket says “a master of the subject has produced a truly comprehensive account—an overview that is a delight to read.” The unnamed commentator is presumably German. We know the name of the translator, but nothing else about him. It is impossible to attach responsibility to the author, the translator, or a conjectural editor at Harvard’s Belknap Press for the chaotic presentation of the facts. It is possible that in his brief preface, Professor Fried explains it all as “consonant with our cognitive makeup as human beings....” (Not, I hope, my cognitive makeup.) But first, the facts. Most potential readers are aware of the learning associated with the court of Charlemagne and the “renaissance of the Twelfth Century.” Here we learn of the scholarly work of the tenth and eleventh centuries especially in salvaging manuscripts and in explorations propaedeutic to later science. The struggles within and between the Church and the (what was later called the Holy) Roman Empire are presented with much detail but little clarity. With small gleams of light, though, we are given to understand that these led to institutional rationalization and the slow growth of liberty. The impact of invasions from the east and southeast broadened western European perspectives, whetted western curiosity, and encouraged commerce. As I said earlier, I am persuaded. The burden on the reader is great, however. I only began jotting down notes late in my reading when I began considering the open invitation from Amazon for reviews, so I can give only a couple of late examples of shortcomings. Many of the difficulties trace to the matter of dates. Many dates are included, but other dates are missing that are critical to following political developments. The “[f]lashback, forward shifts in time, and more minor interpolations by way of digression” which the author mentions in his Preface are especially confusing in the turmoil of the numerous Charleses, Fredericks, Henries, and Sigismunds operating in the various lands that eventually became Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and Hungary. (It is comparatively easy to keep the Poles straight.) The difficulties are compounded by the kings who did or did not become or were simultaneously emperors. One example will have to suffice. On page 492, we are told that “Sigismund died without leaving a son and heir. Although his daughter Elizabeth brought the Luxembourg inheritance to her marriage with Albert of Austria, he met an early death...and did not have any lasting impact on...the empire.” We might have thought we were done with Sigismund on page479 with the “only lasting sign of his term of office...was the imperial coat of arms.” In between, we have had “decades of ecumenical councils” (occasionally bringing Sigismund to mind), Wyclif, Hus and the Hussites, the conquest of France by Henry V of England, Joan of Arc, the reign of Charles VII of France, the end of the War of the Roses, and developments in Burgundy and the Mediterranean. We might also have thought we were done with Albert’s “son and heir,” but then Ladislaus the Posthumous appears. He is placed under the “guardianship of his uncle Frederick V.” “...the German Electors chose Frederick as king....” In the next paragraph, we are told that “Emperor Frederick III...[had trouble] first and foremost [with] his brother Albert of Austria....” On page 495, “brother Albert contested [the Emperor’s] right to...the Austrian ancestral territories....” (Frederick V has only one Index entry, for page 492.) Such intricacies are supplemented by direct errors. One page 498, Charles the Bold of Burgundy is reported in alliance with Edward II of England. It was with Edward IV. Edward II had an unseemly death a hundred and fifty years earlier. The book concludes with an Epilogue reiterating the unfairness of segmenting off the thousand years of the Middle Ages (fair enough) and laying much of the blame on the “bewigged Königberg scholar” Immanuel Kant and “his ilk.” While this brief closing section adds further interesting facts, it is written with distracting venomous sarcasm.

For me, three stars just means a book is average, middle of the road, not bad but not really good. With that in mind, my three star rating here needs some explanation as The Middle Ages is, in some ways, a very very good book and in others, a very very bad book and thus I end up with “average.”On the positive side, the content of Fried’s book is fascinating. His thesis is that the Middle Ages were not the dark period without culture, learning, etc as it is often portrayed. (Fried blames this notion largely on Kant.) Fried demonstrates, largely successfully I think, that an age that begins with a Boethius, Gregory the Great, and Charlemagne, ends with Dante, Giotto, and Charles IV and in between gave rise to William of Occam, Abelard, and the great Universities can hardly be seen as a time when art, education, and thinking were nonexistent. Fried’s view of the millennium between 500 and 1500 AD as constant cultural evolution is fascinating, well thought out and compelling.However, on the negative side the book is seriously flawed, in ways that are probably not for the most part Fried’s fault. The one that clearly is his fault but is one that I could overlook considering the wealth of material being presented is his organization. As others have noted (and as he himself notes in his Preface) that he goes back and forth in time and place bewilderingly. This is a serious problem because it makes keeping the players straight almost impossible in view of the multiple King Charles, Pope Benedicts, etc. that meet throughout the book. It has been suggested that some genealogical charts, time lines etc. would help and I agree. Some maps would similarly be useful and the selected illustrations could use some editing as some don’t seem to go along with he “story” at all while others that you would expect to be there aren’t. The point of all of this is that the book is just plain hard to read, not because it’s concepts are difficult but because of how it is presented.Going along with this, it appears to me that this is not a good translation from the original German. Now I admit that I don’t read German and certainly didn’t do a comparison but in many places the English is quite stilted and sometimes meaningless. It reads at some points like the translator, Peter Lewis did a literal word for word translation like, say, Google might do, without any consideration of the meaning and in the process, the meaning got lost.Making these problems even worse is the fact that the editing is so bad as to be shameful. Someone at Belknap should lose their job. Words are misspelled, duplicated, homophones are inserted, phrases and words are repeated. I truly cannot remembering reading a book where the editing has been this poor.All of this meant that in places, I had to read a sentence or a paragraph several times to understand it, usually only to find that the meaning wasn’t all that complicated. Thus, in the end, I can only recommend this to readers who have a particular interest in cultural history or a deep interest in the history of central Europe (the focus is heavily on the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy).

Excellent scholarship from a distinguished German historian, not a light read by any means, but worth the slog. Much here that is novel, even for someone who has read extensively in the field. Fried's principal thesis is that the Middle Ages led seamlessly to the Renaissance, that the intellectuals of the later era and even the "philosophes" who scorned medieval scholasticism and mysticism as backward in fact stood on the shoulders of the monks and thinkers who went before. The great cathedrals of the High Middle Ages were not built by ignorant savages. The political order that emerged in Europe was first "sketched out" during the medieval period; it was not invented by the Treaty of Westphalia.

Quite a good book, a good read even translated in English. This is for readers who have some familiarity with the Middle Ages. It discusses the intellectual and social trends and developments more than political events. It's a long book, but moves quickly - it has to, it covers a long period of time- and, as noted, assumes familiarity with the main characters and a general knowledge of what happened. The most interesting part is the thought leadership in each period and how it influenced later periods; so, for example, the blending of Visigothic propensities with Christian teachings, and how it came to bear on European society. Worth reading. Don't expect to breeze through. It requires concentration.

Fried's main point is that the Middle Ages were not dark. He argues that the evolution of ideas and the development of institutions, which took place during that millennia (A.D. 500 to 1500), are the foundations of the modern era. This point is elaborated upon in depth throughout the book, alternating fascinating passages of undoubted erudition and clarity with others rather overwrought. It is hard to identify if the unnecessarily intricate phrasing and awkward syntax of some sections is to be blamed on the author or the translator (original is in German). In any case, not all books that aim to bridge academic scholarship and broader public interest succeed, and this one might demand too much from the lay history aficionado.

Novel and highly thought- provoking approach to history telling. There are a few mistakes and repetitions ("was the was the" on p136) and a book that talks about historical places and peoples that no longer exist would be greatly improved with historical maps for reference- I refer constantly to a historical atlas. Otherwise a pleasure to read

A slow read if you are going to get the best out of it. Wonderful documented detail and a fresh approach to the period.It is no surprise given the nationality of the scholar that it tends to be German-centric and suffer slightly from the translation.

A dense and scholarly book - but not maybe an introduction to the Middle Ages for a beginner (which I am not) Punctuation of the translation is very occasionally odd - but that's German for you!

Very old fashioned way of histography. Immensley boring.