Tuesday, July 24, 2007

The Mysteries of the Middle Ages


I've been sitting on this post for a few days now, thinking about what I really want to say in reviewing this book. The easiest way is to start by saying that I liked it, and I'm glad I read it--but with heavy qualifications. Part of the challenge in discussing a book like this is reminding myself that Cahill is not a Christian writer, and despite his Christian (or rather Catholic) leanings, he still has a secular approach. It would be unfair to fault him in purpose, given that his is not that same as mine would be. I kept something of a running list of issues I had taken with him while I read, and I realized when I looked them over that most were problems of small detail. For instance, his claim that II Timothy wasn't written by St Paul. Really? Says who? I haven't heard any theologians make that comment, so I bristled at it. (I suppose it's altogether possible that it is true, but it will take more than his word for me to believe it, cultural arguments aside.) Also, I tend to get peeved when I see people claim that Richard Cœur de Lion was a homosexual. I've heard this for years, and yet I've also read perfectly solid historians point out why he wasn't but would be seen as such through modern lenses. Thus, I get irritated when people say, "Well, you know Richard was almost certainly a homosexual. After all, he and his wife never had children." Well, no, but absence is an amazing contraceptive. I'll bet he had loads of children floating around from France to Palestine, though.

These are really just trifles, however, and shouldn't interfere with whether or not I agree with Cahill's main point. Here is where things get a little tricky for me. From a distance, I can see what Cahill is doing, and I admire his goal. He's an extremely readable writer, and I always enjoy perusing one of his books. Up close, I'm not entirely sure it works. For one, the book begins about four times, which really confused me. We start in Alexandria, and then go to Rome--leaving me to wonder if the whole book is going to be about Italy in the Middle Ages (Cahill has been promising a book about the Romans). And then, we wander again. We touch on Hildegard and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and keep moving until we graze a few topics that course through the Middle Ages, never staying anywhere long enough to be sure we know how it applies. I'm particularly disappointed with his discussion of St Francis of Assisi. No offense intended, but I've never cared for St Francis. He's always come across as somewhat unstable and unreliable as a good example of sainthood, and yet Cahill makes the startling claim that Francis might be the most important historical figure since Christ. Ummm...no. If that were the case, one has to wonder why Cahill only gives him a few pages (and yet devotes so much more to both Hildegard and Eleanor of Aquitaine). The reality is simply that if he did, readers would be even more startled because they would discover that St Francis was a few raisins short of a fruitcake.

Ultimately, I think this book is interesting, but I don't think it works. Cahill is attempting to discuss some very broad topics in a book that was never designed to be broad. He's a great writer of detail. He should have written exclusively about feminism, art, poetry, or politics, and not tried to touch on it all. Poor Dante gets such a short shrift. I almost wish Cahill had left him out, because Dante is just too big to be touched on so briefly. My other problem with the book is that it references the other books in the series far too much. Cahill is very close to assuming that everyone has read them, when in reality this book should be able to stand on its own. Many of his comments made complete sense to me, but then I did read Sailing the Wine Dark Seas and Desire of the Everlasting Hills. Both are great, and both are greater than this one. I'd recommend them, probably more than I can recommend this one. Again, I liked it. I'm glad I read it. But I wouldn't read it again--which is something I certainly can't say about his other books.

On the side, I apologize for not using the book cover to lead this post. I went on Cahill's website and found the image above. And I liked it. It's from Chartres Cathedral...and it's just plain pretty.

Note to Bookfest members: I've cross-posted this review to my own blog.

5 Comments:

At 4:03 AM, Blogger Queen of Carrots said...

I was looking forward to reading this book because I'm on a Middle Ages kick right now, and I am enjoying it somewhat. I have to agree about the poor structure and connections. I keep scratching my head asking, "Now how did we get here?"

I also felt like his modern political applications were overdone, and I think I would have had I fully agreed with them. If I want to read a book about modern American policy in the Middle East, I'll read one, thank you, not a book on medieval history. Ditto with doctrinal critiques. I don't need to know what the *author* thinks about the atonement to understand what Abelard thought of it.

But he is an enjoyable writer to read. And I'm still looking forward to reading *How the Irish Saved Civilization*, which everyone says is much better and is the time period I'm most interested in right now anyway.

 
At 5:19 AM, Blogger B said...

How the Irish Saved Civilization is soooo much better. I can usually put it behind me in a couple of hours because I just can't put it down. And it makes far more sense than this one. Cahill is just a better writer of tiny snapshots of history.

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Carrie said...

Ok, I confess. I was going to try to close my eyes and blindly pretend that this book wasnt' happening this month. It's just not the sort that would float my boat. However, I have heard that "How the Irish Saved Civilization" is an excellent book by several people who have read it. Therefore I will commit to reading that one, which is apparently the better of Cahill's, but I'd rather skip the Middle Ages book.

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger Ms. Kathleen said...

I would have bristled at some of the same issues - and maybe the Richard was sterile? Who knows and does it really matter?

The book does sound interesting. I have read two of his other books and really enjoyed them. I loved How the Irish Saved Civilization and The Gifts of the Jews. Both were excellent.

 
At 9:49 PM, Blogger Carrien Blue said...

I really enjoyed Desire of the Everlasting Hills. I liked that it was written from a secular perspective and especially appreciated his commentary on Paul and how inclusive he was for his time.

I didn't even know he had written a new one.

And I find your perspective on St. Francis interesting. I find some of the things he is recorded to have done quite profound, and then others are just weird.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home