Reproductive Biology And Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage Aphredoderi... Book

While most readers simultaneously love-hate Norman Cantor, even among his bitter critics he is considered a master in the field. In delineating the time frame of the middle ages, Cantor doesn't buck the standard trend that the Middle Ages began in the Barbarian invasions of Rome and ended in 1500. At the same time, though, he pleads for a hearing of other scholars' time lines (usally ending somewhere between 1200 and 1300).

It is difficult to analyze a standard survey work; most cover the same time periods d the same events. Cantor, however, focuses on a number of loci: the interplay between Roman and German law; the nuances of theology upon life, and the changes thereof; and many fascinating connections between medieval life and today.

For Cantor there is a subtle interplay between Latin law/culture and German law/culture (146ff). While much of this narrative is more pertinent to the ideology behind the Inquisition, what it meant for early Middle Ages was the centrality of govt against village-oriented govt. Strong central governments, while providing security and cohesion, often came at the price of corruption. Conversely, a weak govt meant greater freedom but more open to hostile neighbors (e.g., Germany until Bismark). The ancient Germanic principle was that law belongs to the community (316).

For Cantor the defining moment of the Middle Ages is the Gregorian Revolution (247). In his words it was a proto-Puritanical reformation of Catholic morality, but in a way cracked the olde Medieval moment. A form of this, though very indirect, is seen in the Norman conquest of England. (And I am not suggesting a 1:1 correlation between Gregory and Norman England). While strengthing the English "state," it did so by abandoning ancient principles of kingship (277ff).

Surprisingly, Cantor gives very competent discussions of medieval theology (Most people who write on this have no clue what they are discussing). While I cringed at a few generalities, I was impressed particularly (no pun intended) with his section on universals and the nominalism debate (334ff).

There are a few drawbacks to this book, though none that are particularly Cantor's fault. While the early sections of the book (and also on the Crusades), Cantor fully develops early Byzantine history into his narrative, the book is more of a History of Western Middle Ages; the Byzantist will be disappointed.

The strengths of the book more than cover the faults.