What do you think?
Rate this book
Terry Jones' Medieval Lives
Was medieval England full of knights on horseback rescuing fainting damsels in distress? Were the Middle Ages mired in superstition and ignorance? Why does nobody ever mention King Louis the First and Last? And, of course, those key which monks were forbidden the delights of donning underpants... and did outlaws never wear trousers?Terry Jones and Alan Ereira are your guides to this most misrepresented and misunderstood period, and they point you to things that will surprise and provoke. Did you know, for example, that medieval people didn't think the world was flat? That was a total fabrication by an American journalist in the 19th century. Did you know that they didn't burn witches in the Middle Ages? That was a refinement of the so-called Renaissance. In fact, medieval kings weren't necessarily merciless tyrants, and peasants entertained at home using French pottery and fine wine. Terry Jones' Medieval Lives reveals Medieval Britain as you have never seen it before - a vibrant society teeming with individuality, intrigue and innovation.
224 pages, ebook
First published February 1, 2004
342 people are currently reading
5958 people want to read
About the author
Terry Jones
185 books289 followersLibrarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
Terence Graham Parry Jones was a Welsh actor, comedian, director, historian, writer and member of the Monty Python comedy troupe.
After graduating from Oxford University with a degree in English, Jones and writing partner Michael Palin wrote and performed for several high-profile British comedy programmes, including Do Not Adjust Your Set and The Frost Report, before creating Monty Python's Flying Circus with Cambridge graduates Graham Chapman, John Cleese, and Eric Idle and American animator-filmmaker Terry Gilliam. Jones was largely responsible for the programme's innovative, surreal structure, in which sketches flowed from one to the next without the use of punch lines. He made his directorial debut with Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which he co-directed with Gilliam, and also directed the subsequent Python films Life of Brian and The Meaning of Life.
Jones co-created and co-wrote with Palin the anthology series Ripping Yarns. He also wrote an early draft of Jim Henson's film Labyrinth and is credited with the screenplay, though little of his work actually remained in the final cut. Jones was a well-respected medieval historian, having written several books and presented television documentaries about the period, as well as a prolific children's author. In 2016, Jones received a Lifetime Achievement award at the BAFTA Cymru Awards for his outstanding contribution to television and film. After living for several years with a degenerative aphasia, he gradually lost the ability to speak and died in 2020 from frontotemporal dementia.
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
Terence Graham Parry Jones was a Welsh actor, comedian, director, historian, writer and member of the Monty Python comedy troupe.
After graduating from Oxford University with a degree in English, Jones and writing partner Michael Palin wrote and performed for several high-profile British comedy programmes, including Do Not Adjust Your Set and The Frost Report, before creating Monty Python's Flying Circus with Cambridge graduates Graham Chapman, John Cleese, and Eric Idle and American animator-filmmaker Terry Gilliam. Jones was largely responsible for the programme's innovative, surreal structure, in which sketches flowed from one to the next without the use of punch lines. He made his directorial debut with Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which he co-directed with Gilliam, and also directed the subsequent Python films Life of Brian and The Meaning of Life.
Jones co-created and co-wrote with Palin the anthology series Ripping Yarns. He also wrote an early draft of Jim Henson's film Labyrinth and is credited with the screenplay, though little of his work actually remained in the final cut. Jones was a well-respected medieval historian, having written several books and presented television documentaries about the period, as well as a prolific children's author. In 2016, Jones received a Lifetime Achievement award at the BAFTA Cymru Awards for his outstanding contribution to television and film. After living for several years with a degenerative aphasia, he gradually lost the ability to speak and died in 2020 from frontotemporal dementia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 245 reviews
February 3, 2020
Sometimes when people die you think you already knew pretty much all there was to know about them. But then you find out that you actually knew next to nothing at all. Terry Jones from Monty Python is a case in point.
This book was interesting and much better than I was expecting - but then, I wasn't really expecting too much, since I only found out it even existed a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, there is a television series as well, but I have never seen that and am not even sure how I might go about seeing it.
So, this is a little bit like one of those shows they have on TV where they tell you about the worst jobs in history – expect this is sort of an inversion of that idea. That is, since we all ‘know’ about how crap life was if you were alive (and not the king) in the dark ages, this book puts this into perspective and shows life wasn't actually as horrible as you might assume. We also all know that damsels were distressed and knights were in white satin. But this book shows that many of these common myths were, well, myths. I didn’t think I was going to learn very much from this book, but I was wrong.
Mostly this book is set in England, and so the Norman Invasion gets a run for its money. Since I went to school in Australia, I didn’t learn anything at all about Australian History, but at least I thought I'd learnt something about English History. I know, seems strange, but it didn’t at the time – and mostly still doesn’t to too many students even yet.
The Norman Invasion was a deeply traumatic time for England. Not least since it seems the Normans didn’t ever quite see the locals as anything other than a source of wealth. In fact, part of the reason why Robin Hood is a prize character in English history is not just his fetching tights, but rather that bandits such as Robin were in fact local aristocracy that had fallen on hard times due to the Norman turning up and taxing them to death. So, Robin was less a case of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and more a case of raping and pillaging to keep body and soul together between wars.
The Normans also did as much as they could to undermine local legal system – which seems like a terribly strange thing to have done. This meant that people would avoid bringing their concerns to the courts – where, often, even if they won they would have to pay 'costs' and so basically lose. I couldn’t help thinking that the same happens now. For instance, McDonalds suing poor anarchists who are essentially telling the truth about the poison McDonalds sell that is masquerading as food or the starvation wages they pay their employees. The modern day corporation's ‘we will fight it, even if we know we are going to lose, because it will ruin you and be something we can right off on out taxes’ seems pretty close to what the Normans liked to do too.
This was a nice, interesting and very readable little book. Highly recommended.
This book was interesting and much better than I was expecting - but then, I wasn't really expecting too much, since I only found out it even existed a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, there is a television series as well, but I have never seen that and am not even sure how I might go about seeing it.
So, this is a little bit like one of those shows they have on TV where they tell you about the worst jobs in history – expect this is sort of an inversion of that idea. That is, since we all ‘know’ about how crap life was if you were alive (and not the king) in the dark ages, this book puts this into perspective and shows life wasn't actually as horrible as you might assume. We also all know that damsels were distressed and knights were in white satin. But this book shows that many of these common myths were, well, myths. I didn’t think I was going to learn very much from this book, but I was wrong.
Mostly this book is set in England, and so the Norman Invasion gets a run for its money. Since I went to school in Australia, I didn’t learn anything at all about Australian History, but at least I thought I'd learnt something about English History. I know, seems strange, but it didn’t at the time – and mostly still doesn’t to too many students even yet.
The Norman Invasion was a deeply traumatic time for England. Not least since it seems the Normans didn’t ever quite see the locals as anything other than a source of wealth. In fact, part of the reason why Robin Hood is a prize character in English history is not just his fetching tights, but rather that bandits such as Robin were in fact local aristocracy that had fallen on hard times due to the Norman turning up and taxing them to death. So, Robin was less a case of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and more a case of raping and pillaging to keep body and soul together between wars.
The Normans also did as much as they could to undermine local legal system – which seems like a terribly strange thing to have done. This meant that people would avoid bringing their concerns to the courts – where, often, even if they won they would have to pay 'costs' and so basically lose. I couldn’t help thinking that the same happens now. For instance, McDonalds suing poor anarchists who are essentially telling the truth about the poison McDonalds sell that is masquerading as food or the starvation wages they pay their employees. The modern day corporation's ‘we will fight it, even if we know we are going to lose, because it will ruin you and be something we can right off on out taxes’ seems pretty close to what the Normans liked to do too.
This was a nice, interesting and very readable little book. Highly recommended.
February 11, 2017
Description: Famous for lampooning the medieval world in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Terry Jones has a real passion for and detailed knowledge of the Middle Ages. In Terry Jones' Medieval Lives, his mission is to rescue the Middle Ages from moth-eaten cliches and well-worn platitudes. Behind the stereotypes of "damsels in distress" and "knights in shining armor," there are wonderfully human stories that bring the period to life. Terry will start with the medieval archetypes—the Knight, Peasant, Damsel, Monk, Outlaw, King, Merchant, and Physician—and in the course of unravelling their role and function will introduce a host of colorful real-life characters, recreating their world by visiting key locations.
February 7, 2017
3.5 stars.
I was expecting this to have a little more comedy thrown in since it is authored by Monty Python's Terry Jones so that was a little disappointing.
The book overall was pretty good but covered too many topics over too long of a period. I wanted more detail and insight as to how life truly was back then and felt I got more or less a lesson in politics.
I felt a little lost from time to time, since I am not a historian.. not even close. There were many references made to things that I suppose most people know about, unfortunately I do not.
I did learn quite a bit, some of it was surprising, most was not.
I enjoyed it.
August 26, 2014
4.5 really...
For the longest time, everything I ‘knew’ about Medieval England I'd learnt from Monty Python’s Holy Grail.
Now that I’ve discovered that history isn’t the boring list of dates my teachers made it out to be, and lacking the thousands of pounds required to go and get a proper education, it’s only fitting to turn back to a Python for my further education. And what a brilliant education it is – chock full of fascinating facts and humour, and providing a sturdy foundation for further reading.
Taking a look at the many stereotypes associated with the age (peasant, minstrel, outlaw, monk, philosopher, knight, damsel and king) Jones & Ereira debunk many of the popular misconceptions via brilliant medieval anecdotes that brings real life to their material, as well as laying clear the propaganda machine that’s helped cement in place most of our accepted ‘facts’ (ie ‘Good’ King Richard I was a mass-murdering rapist who detested England and spent only 6 months of his entire ten-year reign here, and hoped to sell it off to the highest bidder, whereas ‘Bad’ King Richard II might have actually been pretty awesome, except Henry Bolingbroke’s spin doctors got to work on the history books)
Fantastic stuff that I highly recommend - I'm now hoping that Terry decides to tackle the rest of English history, as it's a class I desperately want to sign up for. You should too.
**Also posted at Randomly Reading and Ranting**
For the longest time, everything I ‘knew’ about Medieval England I'd learnt from Monty Python’s Holy Grail.
Now that I’ve discovered that history isn’t the boring list of dates my teachers made it out to be, and lacking the thousands of pounds required to go and get a proper education, it’s only fitting to turn back to a Python for my further education. And what a brilliant education it is – chock full of fascinating facts and humour, and providing a sturdy foundation for further reading.
Taking a look at the many stereotypes associated with the age (peasant, minstrel, outlaw, monk, philosopher, knight, damsel and king) Jones & Ereira debunk many of the popular misconceptions via brilliant medieval anecdotes that brings real life to their material, as well as laying clear the propaganda machine that’s helped cement in place most of our accepted ‘facts’ (ie ‘Good’ King Richard I was a mass-murdering rapist who detested England and spent only 6 months of his entire ten-year reign here, and hoped to sell it off to the highest bidder, whereas ‘Bad’ King Richard II might have actually been pretty awesome, except Henry Bolingbroke’s spin doctors got to work on the history books)
Fantastic stuff that I highly recommend - I'm now hoping that Terry decides to tackle the rest of English history, as it's a class I desperately want to sign up for. You should too.
**Also posted at Randomly Reading and Ranting**
October 3, 2016
Plenty of interesting (and surprising) facts - the author has obviously done a huge amount of research (the bibliography takes up 10% of the volume!). The writing style was perhaps a little on the dry side for me - it took me quite a while to plough through the book, but it was still worth reading.
January 31, 2021
A középkor egy fabrikáció! Méghogy sötét, és tudománytalan, és barbár? Ellenkezőleg. Angliában a középkor fasza volt.
Terry Jones Húzónév és Alan Ereira könyve meglepően komoly, bár néha leeresztik a hajukat, és poénkodás is jut a sok történelmi búvárkodás mellé. (A Gyalog galopp karikatúráit csak messziről érinti, ám én mégis folyton ennél kötöttem ki.) Fejezetenként egy-egy "osztályt" vagy kasztot vizsgál meg közelről: paraszt, szerzetes, filozófus (vagyis alkimista), lovag, udvarhölgy, király. Elég jól működő szerkesztési elv, bár maga a "középkor" kifejezés is rögtön tisztázásra szorul, és kábé mindenről kiderül hosszabb-rövidebb úton, hogy Nem Is Úgy Volt. Gyakran félreértések, szándékos rémhírkeltés, propaganda és ellenpropaganda, utólagos urban legendek, kritikátlanul átvett források alapján épültek ki a középkorró alkotott popkulturális sztereotípiák, a prerafaellitáktól Hollywoodig- és ez a történelemátírás, így értelmezve és kifejtve tök hihető és hiteles nekem, laikusnak, mert bár a középkori* angol történelemről maximum érettségizős és királydrámás értesülésem van, a történelem és a politika úgy tűnik akkor is egészen hasonlóan működött, mint ma. Pénz, hatalom, propaganda, érdekfeszülések és tényleg szüntelen kavarások.
Egészen meglepő, hogy mindez mennyire érdekes. Hogy alternatív történelem - de végülis nincs is más fajta.
*ez persze utálagos fogalom, hogy "középkor", a klasszicizmus találmánya, nyilván sosem gondolták úgy a középkorban hogy "mi itt egy középkorban élünk", és pont hogy ezzel indít a történetük.
Terry Jones Húzónév és Alan Ereira könyve meglepően komoly, bár néha leeresztik a hajukat, és poénkodás is jut a sok történelmi búvárkodás mellé. (A Gyalog galopp karikatúráit csak messziről érinti, ám én mégis folyton ennél kötöttem ki.) Fejezetenként egy-egy "osztályt" vagy kasztot vizsgál meg közelről: paraszt, szerzetes, filozófus (vagyis alkimista), lovag, udvarhölgy, király. Elég jól működő szerkesztési elv, bár maga a "középkor" kifejezés is rögtön tisztázásra szorul, és kábé mindenről kiderül hosszabb-rövidebb úton, hogy Nem Is Úgy Volt. Gyakran félreértések, szándékos rémhírkeltés, propaganda és ellenpropaganda, utólagos urban legendek, kritikátlanul átvett források alapján épültek ki a középkorró alkotott popkulturális sztereotípiák, a prerafaellitáktól Hollywoodig- és ez a történelemátírás, így értelmezve és kifejtve tök hihető és hiteles nekem, laikusnak, mert bár a középkori* angol történelemről maximum érettségizős és királydrámás értesülésem van, a történelem és a politika úgy tűnik akkor is egészen hasonlóan működött, mint ma. Pénz, hatalom, propaganda, érdekfeszülések és tényleg szüntelen kavarások.
Egészen meglepő, hogy mindez mennyire érdekes. Hogy alternatív történelem - de végülis nincs is más fajta.
*ez persze utálagos fogalom, hogy "középkor", a klasszicizmus találmánya, nyilván sosem gondolták úgy a középkorban hogy "mi itt egy középkorban élünk", és pont hogy ezzel indít a történetük.
January 27, 2017
Although Terry’s delightful presentation skills make the BBC series version memorable, I found his writing style to be much more captivating. I enjoyed very much reading the book . I was very well surprised by the elaborate details used to debunk many of the classic popular conceptions associated with the Middle Ages .I liked the most the ‘Damsel’ ( chapter 7) and ‘Peasant’ (chapter 1) – I was fascinated to learn that these people, who in general are perceived to be weak and have limited coping skills, were able to handle so courageously and wisely unfortunate events.
Chapter 1 ‘Peasants’
"In the summer of 1381... It was the first and last large-scale popular uprising in English history."
"The rising.. was highly organized and carefully prepared.
"For a start, many areas of the country rose virtually simultaneously, which indicates that peasants had the capacity for organization on a much larger scale than the purely local.
Moreover, the rebels’ selection of targets in London demonstrates that the violence there was deliberate and specific.
The targets of the rebels’ destruction were places where records were stored: abbeys, priories, lawyers’ houses and the like."
"But this was not a general attack on literacy. It was specifically legal records that were destroyed and others, in many places, were left intact. Some, at least, of the rebels could read. So if peasants were not illiterate members of a dirty, uncouth, barbarous, rural ‘lumpen proletariat’ , who were they?"
"Many manorial lords held several manors and spent much of their time away fighting. They needed the manor to look after itself – or rather, they needed their villeins (known peasants) to organize its care for them....Some villages came close to being totally self governing political entities run by the peasants for the peasants. Villeins resisted authority by quietly ignoring regulations, and manipulated the system by exploiting their influence as officials and bending laws in their own favor."
Chapter 1 ‘Peasants’
"In the summer of 1381... It was the first and last large-scale popular uprising in English history."
"The rising.. was highly organized and carefully prepared.
"For a start, many areas of the country rose virtually simultaneously, which indicates that peasants had the capacity for organization on a much larger scale than the purely local.
Moreover, the rebels’ selection of targets in London demonstrates that the violence there was deliberate and specific.
The targets of the rebels’ destruction were places where records were stored: abbeys, priories, lawyers’ houses and the like."
"But this was not a general attack on literacy. It was specifically legal records that were destroyed and others, in many places, were left intact. Some, at least, of the rebels could read. So if peasants were not illiterate members of a dirty, uncouth, barbarous, rural ‘lumpen proletariat’ , who were they?"
"Many manorial lords held several manors and spent much of their time away fighting. They needed the manor to look after itself – or rather, they needed their villeins (known peasants) to organize its care for them....Some villages came close to being totally self governing political entities run by the peasants for the peasants. Villeins resisted authority by quietly ignoring regulations, and manipulated the system by exploiting their influence as officials and bending laws in their own favor."
July 30, 2014
I was disappointed with this book. I have not seen the television series.
I measure the accuracy of non-fiction by how well it does when it intersects my own knowledge base. I can't comment on whether much of the book was correct but when it talked about how the science of this time was not primitive and gave examples such as leeches were used then and used in microsurgery today, that is insulting to logic. Leeches were used to no good effect back then. Just because they have a use now, doesn't bless the past. Similarly, the presence of charlatans of science in the Middle Ages is not supposed to negate the quality of their science because we have frauds today.
How am I supposed to trust this book when it gets to fields I don't know much about? One example is often given to prove a point, when a simple line could be added to let us know this was typical. The peasantry were well-fed. As proof, the archeological findings of a single town are cited. Please let me know if there is supporting evidence to say this was generally so.
A monk in the eleventh century tried gliding from a tower and crashed breaking both legs. Interesting, but hardly worthy of the following contention that by not continuing with this experimentation, flight was set back by 900 years. Such numbers get loosely tossed around. It would be 800 years before more systematic attempts at gliding would take place (George Cayley). And, I'm sorry, but the people in the middle ages didn't have the science to get this experiment to go anywhere substantial.
The anecdotes are entertaining and I came away with a few insights, but I felt the book was flaccid, poorly thought-out and poorly organized.
I measure the accuracy of non-fiction by how well it does when it intersects my own knowledge base. I can't comment on whether much of the book was correct but when it talked about how the science of this time was not primitive and gave examples such as leeches were used then and used in microsurgery today, that is insulting to logic. Leeches were used to no good effect back then. Just because they have a use now, doesn't bless the past. Similarly, the presence of charlatans of science in the Middle Ages is not supposed to negate the quality of their science because we have frauds today.
How am I supposed to trust this book when it gets to fields I don't know much about? One example is often given to prove a point, when a simple line could be added to let us know this was typical. The peasantry were well-fed. As proof, the archeological findings of a single town are cited. Please let me know if there is supporting evidence to say this was generally so.
A monk in the eleventh century tried gliding from a tower and crashed breaking both legs. Interesting, but hardly worthy of the following contention that by not continuing with this experimentation, flight was set back by 900 years. Such numbers get loosely tossed around. It would be 800 years before more systematic attempts at gliding would take place (George Cayley). And, I'm sorry, but the people in the middle ages didn't have the science to get this experiment to go anywhere substantial.
The anecdotes are entertaining and I came away with a few insights, but I felt the book was flaccid, poorly thought-out and poorly organized.
December 19, 2011
I've seen the Medieval Lives TV series and this is just as good, though each contains information not found in the other. This is serious history, but Terry Jones, being Terry Jones, is able to insert plenty of humor. Highly recommended for high school and college classrooms, and for anyone interested in medieval history.
March 30, 2017
Еще один телевизионно-сопроводительный текст, отлично идет в паре с книжкой про ирландскую "средневековую" жизнь. Ну и юмор Терри Джоунза помогает.
August 17, 2020
This is a delightful book for both the layman and expert. Jones is funny (or more cheeky) but he has good observations about the various Medieval archetypes. Particularly good is the book as a memory study, arguing against the interpretations of the Middle Ages as backward (Enlightenment view), idealized (romantic/Victorian view), and holy (Catholic view). The origins of these interpretations are disparaged as fulfilling a propaganda role. I agree, but it is true that nearly all lies are based on some truth. Richard II might not have been cruel, but he was vain and lived lavishly. Richard I may not have captured Jerusalem, but he was certainly a capable warrior and commander. The Middle Ages were in many cases backwards, religion was the center of life, and the Victorians might have been...wait no their interpretation was wholly a fantasy.
Anyway, go read this book. You will learn a lot, laugh a little, and come away more impressed with Terry Jones than you were before.
Anyway, go read this book. You will learn a lot, laugh a little, and come away more impressed with Terry Jones than you were before.
April 5, 2020
Alright, so my thinking on this book was "Medieval=awesome, Terry Jones=also awesome, I must read this." So, pretty much that's how the book goes as well. A hefty amount of the information was familiar to me, (I even recognized the Christine de Pisan passage from when I read it in Art History,) but some of it was new and those parts were interesting. I also really liked the way that the information was presented, although that isn't very surprising to me. The whole book wasn't laugh out loud funny, but there were some places that were pretty good in that regard.
I think if I have any complaints, it's that the book wasn't long enough; I wanted more sections. Oh, okay, also I would have liked less of a focus on Britain since that is where most of my medieval knowledge comes from already. And I was a slight bit irritated that (again, as other books have done) it didn't just come out and say that it was basically about England, some Normandy and the occasional scrap about Italy.
Other than all of that, I really liked reading the book. It wasn't difficult to read, but it wasn't a simple history either; I think that was very well done. I also think I might have liked this book more if I didn't know so much of the information from previous sources. This would be a good introduction for someone that didn't know a lot about the real Middle Ages but was interested.
I think if I have any complaints, it's that the book wasn't long enough; I wanted more sections. Oh, okay, also I would have liked less of a focus on Britain since that is where most of my medieval knowledge comes from already. And I was a slight bit irritated that (again, as other books have done) it didn't just come out and say that it was basically about England, some Normandy and the occasional scrap about Italy.
Other than all of that, I really liked reading the book. It wasn't difficult to read, but it wasn't a simple history either; I think that was very well done. I also think I might have liked this book more if I didn't know so much of the information from previous sources. This would be a good introduction for someone that didn't know a lot about the real Middle Ages but was interested.
November 26, 2018
3.5 stars.
I found this book interesting for several reasons. First of all, I firmly believe that no two people read the same book; in fact, the same individual can reread a book and take away completely different ideas. This explains why such disparate reviews exist, and I found some really interesting reviews on this book.
Second, I’m a bit of an amateur historian; history was always my favorite subject in school. I took lots of history courses in college, and I regularly read history - both nonfiction and historical fiction - for pleasure. As an American, naturally our history is in a sense parallel to and intertwined with that of England/Great Britain and I am particularly fascinated by the long rich history of the British.
I already know a bit about the facts and dates of events in English history so I can’t say that I learned any startling new facts from this book. However, I very much enjoyed the various anecdotes that Jones and Ereira related, and I appreciated the footnotes that accompanied them. My TBR continues to grow. That being said, I did feel that some of their conclusions could have been better supported with more than scattered anecdotes. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions, but I will keep an open mind rather than accept all of them as gospel truth.
I found this book interesting for several reasons. First of all, I firmly believe that no two people read the same book; in fact, the same individual can reread a book and take away completely different ideas. This explains why such disparate reviews exist, and I found some really interesting reviews on this book.
Second, I’m a bit of an amateur historian; history was always my favorite subject in school. I took lots of history courses in college, and I regularly read history - both nonfiction and historical fiction - for pleasure. As an American, naturally our history is in a sense parallel to and intertwined with that of England/Great Britain and I am particularly fascinated by the long rich history of the British.
I already know a bit about the facts and dates of events in English history so I can’t say that I learned any startling new facts from this book. However, I very much enjoyed the various anecdotes that Jones and Ereira related, and I appreciated the footnotes that accompanied them. My TBR continues to grow. That being said, I did feel that some of their conclusions could have been better supported with more than scattered anecdotes. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions, but I will keep an open mind rather than accept all of them as gospel truth.
August 1, 2008
History doesn't have to be boring.
This slender volume contains some neatly presented information about life in the Middle Ages (defined as 1066 to 1536), and introduces humour and colour into the mix. Be warned, though, its real value is in providing a panoramic view of the times rather than a detailed snapshot of the events. If you want or need more detail, you’d be well advised to delve in to the bibliography provided.
Still, it’s hard not to wonder about why nobody ever mentions King Louis the First (and Last). And which monks were forbidden the delights of donning underpants (and why)? Did medieval people think the world was flat? Not according to Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, who advise that this was an invention of a French antireligious academic (Antoine-Jean Letronne) and the American novelist Washington Irving during the 19th century.
Under the headings of Peasant, Minstrel, Outlaw, Monk, Philosopher, Knight, Damsel and King are vignettes which serve to bring some meaning to these headings and some context to some of the names that readers may remember from history. For example, the stories of Blondel (Minstrel) and William Marshal (Knight).
A fun and entertaining read for those looking to a light-hearted but informative snapshot of the times.
July 30, 2015
My main problem with this book is that it never seems to figure out what it wants to be. It's much too biased and flippant to be a trustworthy historical text, and often picks and chooses facts to fit with a preferred narrative (the incidence other reviewers have mentioned about questioning Queen Elizabeth I's parentage is one undermining example). Yet it clearly wants the reader to take historical fact away from it, and while it has wit, isn't particularly funny. It's very difficult to blend genres with informational books, and I don't think this one succeeded.
That said, it is a decent primer for medieval history. It's not nearly as dry as many history books are and gives a decent overview of many aspects of the period. It's a good launching point on the subject for someone who isn't familiar with it already. I've already started researching fascinating characters introduced to me by this book. It was an interesting and enjoyable read, just not something I was able to put a lot of trust in.
That said, it is a decent primer for medieval history. It's not nearly as dry as many history books are and gives a decent overview of many aspects of the period. It's a good launching point on the subject for someone who isn't familiar with it already. I've already started researching fascinating characters introduced to me by this book. It was an interesting and enjoyable read, just not something I was able to put a lot of trust in.
August 9, 2015
This book was not at all what I thought it would be. Well, maybe it was half of what I expected. I came across this book and saw Terry Jones' name attached to it. I'm a history nut and a Monty Python fan. My expectation is that Terry Jones' Medieval Lives would blend some factual details of the way people lived during the medieval era with the lively humor of Monty Python. I was wrong, so very wrong. I indeed got a diatribe of medieval life, which may or may not be 100% factual. It does seem well researched, but I suspect that some liberties in conclusions were made. There was no humor, whatsoever. Very disappointing on that account. If I had wanted to read dry and boring, I would have picked up my 7th grade history book (written about 40 years ago).
If you're okay with straight information, compacting four centuries in 200 pages, then this is the book for you. For me, it was disappointment. I learned a little along the way, but mostly I feel asleep every 20 pages or so.
If you're okay with straight information, compacting four centuries in 200 pages, then this is the book for you. For me, it was disappointment. I learned a little along the way, but mostly I feel asleep every 20 pages or so.
February 18, 2024
Yes That Terry Jones!
This is a clever book that instead of giving you simply dates and facts breaks the period out by people or more generally groups of people. Like Knights, Damsels, peasants, Kings, minstrels, monks, etc.
Throw away everything you think you know about most of these folks, damsels were rarely in distress, knights were rarely chivalrous and peasants lived pretty well; not a hovel to be seen.
Immensely readable and still very informative and well researched.
This is a clever book that instead of giving you simply dates and facts breaks the period out by people or more generally groups of people. Like Knights, Damsels, peasants, Kings, minstrels, monks, etc.
Throw away everything you think you know about most of these folks, damsels were rarely in distress, knights were rarely chivalrous and peasants lived pretty well; not a hovel to be seen.
Immensely readable and still very informative and well researched.
March 28, 2015
An entertaining way to introduce medieval lives to a general audience.
December 30, 2020
In many ways, this book is an entertaining volume, even though it seeks to present itself as something more than mere entertainment. As any author does, this particular writer comes to the subject of medieval history and the lives of various classes of people with a certain bias and a certain background. Among his biases is a strong hostility to organized religion as well as a certain degree of favoritism to entertainers and outlaws. Similarly, the author comes to the Middle Ages with a certain background as a comedian whose work, especially Monty Python's Search For The Holy Grail, itself made a lot of knowing winks and nods at the medieval history of the British Isles. So long as this book is viewed as a humorous and lighthearted attempt at popular history, it is far easier to enjoy than when one is tearing it apart for its inevitable stumbles and errors and its failure to give credit where credit is due to various people and groups of people. Admittedly, the book deserves praise for its discussion of the peasant as a key aspect of the society of the Middle Ages, but unfortunately the author ignores town dwellers and focuses on parasitic cultural and intellectual elites, evidence of an anti-bourgeois bias that is all too common in such efforts.
This book is about 250 large pages long and it begins with an introduction that demonstrates the anti-Roman and to a large extent the anti-Norman approach of the author when it comes to English history. After this comes a look at books that deal with different classes of society, looking first as peasants (1), who made up the vast majority of the population of most European nations during the Middle Ages, as well as looking at how peasantry changed over time. This is followed by a discussion of three classes that demonstrate the author's fondness (minstrels (2) and outlaws (3)) as well as hostility (monks (4)). Although these classes did not make for a large amount of the population, their role in culture, including the development of various stories and the relationship between culture and political power, and between church in state, is of obvious importance. After this the author looks at the even more rare class of philosopher (5), seeking to praise them for a high degree of realism, while also discussing knights (6), damsels (7), and kings (8) and their behavior during the period, with some insights and some hilarity.
One of the most important aspects of dealing with nonfiction books is recognizing that all books are written with an agenda of some kind and all books are written with a perspective. This author is sufficiently transparent with his agenda and his perspective is sufficiently well known that it can be accounted for. If the author spends some time seeking to deal with various myths of the Middle Ages, picking on the Victorian era for myths about the flat earth as well as the belief of weak damsels in distress when women in the Middle Ages come off as rather courageous in many cases, which was all too necessary in that violent and dangerous time, the author contributes his own myths and exaggerations about religion, and his own whitewashing of the importance of trade and commerce to the well-being of England, a subject matter he shows little personal interest in except to use it as a way to insult the religious sincerity of monks. Still, a book like this is not without value, and not without entertainment, and one hopes that the documentary that this book was attached to was at least as comical as the book art that appears here.
This book is about 250 large pages long and it begins with an introduction that demonstrates the anti-Roman and to a large extent the anti-Norman approach of the author when it comes to English history. After this comes a look at books that deal with different classes of society, looking first as peasants (1), who made up the vast majority of the population of most European nations during the Middle Ages, as well as looking at how peasantry changed over time. This is followed by a discussion of three classes that demonstrate the author's fondness (minstrels (2) and outlaws (3)) as well as hostility (monks (4)). Although these classes did not make for a large amount of the population, their role in culture, including the development of various stories and the relationship between culture and political power, and between church in state, is of obvious importance. After this the author looks at the even more rare class of philosopher (5), seeking to praise them for a high degree of realism, while also discussing knights (6), damsels (7), and kings (8) and their behavior during the period, with some insights and some hilarity.
One of the most important aspects of dealing with nonfiction books is recognizing that all books are written with an agenda of some kind and all books are written with a perspective. This author is sufficiently transparent with his agenda and his perspective is sufficiently well known that it can be accounted for. If the author spends some time seeking to deal with various myths of the Middle Ages, picking on the Victorian era for myths about the flat earth as well as the belief of weak damsels in distress when women in the Middle Ages come off as rather courageous in many cases, which was all too necessary in that violent and dangerous time, the author contributes his own myths and exaggerations about religion, and his own whitewashing of the importance of trade and commerce to the well-being of England, a subject matter he shows little personal interest in except to use it as a way to insult the religious sincerity of monks. Still, a book like this is not without value, and not without entertainment, and one hopes that the documentary that this book was attached to was at least as comical as the book art that appears here.
May 29, 2020
Brilliant book crammed full of facts about the medieval period. Each chapter is about different people you would find in the middle ages from the monk to the outlaw. I would definitely recommend this book if you are a fan of history, but want an easy fun read.
Read
May 28, 2025Readable survey of English life from the Norman Conquest to the dissolution of the monasteries. Lucky enough to have happened across a signed copy at my local used bookstore. Rip Terry ❤️
April 20, 2015
Terry Jones' love of history is well-known, and this book, which seemed to be based on a BBC series of the same name, goes more deeply and detailedly in the richness of late medieval history in English than one would expect . Written with Alan Ereira, parts of pieces of Jones' comedic voice remains in the the text. Separated into the medieval roles, Jones uses these roles to construct a counter-narrative to many of the stereotypes around medieval history through focusing in on specific instances and highlighting specific anecdotes to clarify the his major points.
It is clearly organized, and the focus on specific anecdotes are useful, but definitely feel more cinematic than scholarly. However, there are reasons why Jones' did this that are beyond limits based on the BBC series: Jones has a bone to pick with much of the historigraphy around the Renaissance. As he said in an interview "...And I'm sick to death of that ridiculous assumption that that before the Renaissance human beings had no sense of individuality." Jones aims to illustrate that this is clearly a misunderstanding of self-conception of humanity in the medieval period. The anecdotes persalize things on an individual level. Furthermore, Jones' is good a pointing out that our conceptions of the medieval period are often more based on Victorian misconceptions and projecting violence of the Renaissance and the early modern period back unto medieval period.
The book is particularly good on the selective criterion for understanding the Plantagent kings as well as omissions from the king's list like Louis the first and last, who was ruler during the first Baron's War. It also is particularly strong in the areas about popular medieval conceptions of women. A close reading of Chaucer would have confirmed a lot of what Jones is saying, but he and Ereira do a particularly good job of finding both historical and literary sources to make their point here. A weak point may be on medieval medicine where Jones seems to think that treatments developed in the medieval period that ther roots of some modern treatments were more effective than they were. He does not mention how dangerous a lot of the medical precedures used by Galen are, and then he justifies it by morality rates in modern hospitals due to infection. The two cases aren't really good analogies for severeal reasons: Most of which having to do with the fact we understand what hospital morality is so high, but medieval doctors didn't understand why so many of their leeched patiences died anyway.
While Ian Mortimer's "Time Travellers Guide to Medieval England" show be paired with this as it is much more substantive and should probably be read with this book, Jones light take on history is still substantive enough for the non-specialist to learn significant amounts and for the specialist to be fairly amused.
It is clearly organized, and the focus on specific anecdotes are useful, but definitely feel more cinematic than scholarly. However, there are reasons why Jones' did this that are beyond limits based on the BBC series: Jones has a bone to pick with much of the historigraphy around the Renaissance. As he said in an interview "...And I'm sick to death of that ridiculous assumption that that before the Renaissance human beings had no sense of individuality." Jones aims to illustrate that this is clearly a misunderstanding of self-conception of humanity in the medieval period. The anecdotes persalize things on an individual level. Furthermore, Jones' is good a pointing out that our conceptions of the medieval period are often more based on Victorian misconceptions and projecting violence of the Renaissance and the early modern period back unto medieval period.
The book is particularly good on the selective criterion for understanding the Plantagent kings as well as omissions from the king's list like Louis the first and last, who was ruler during the first Baron's War. It also is particularly strong in the areas about popular medieval conceptions of women. A close reading of Chaucer would have confirmed a lot of what Jones is saying, but he and Ereira do a particularly good job of finding both historical and literary sources to make their point here. A weak point may be on medieval medicine where Jones seems to think that treatments developed in the medieval period that ther roots of some modern treatments were more effective than they were. He does not mention how dangerous a lot of the medical precedures used by Galen are, and then he justifies it by morality rates in modern hospitals due to infection. The two cases aren't really good analogies for severeal reasons: Most of which having to do with the fact we understand what hospital morality is so high, but medieval doctors didn't understand why so many of their leeched patiences died anyway.
While Ian Mortimer's "Time Travellers Guide to Medieval England" show be paired with this as it is much more substantive and should probably be read with this book, Jones light take on history is still substantive enough for the non-specialist to learn significant amounts and for the specialist to be fairly amused.
December 22, 2021
Fun History book that covers Medieval England in an unusual way. Instead of just going over historical events or expanding on a particular person or event, the central thesis is that "19th century novelists and 20th century filmmakers have created a period that never existed." Medieval years are romanticized in films and books. Anyone who reads high fantasy knows this is generally the mythical time they are set in. Or at least something resembling Medieval times.
The book's chapters are devoted to breaking down the archetypes that are used in films and books. Jones and Alan Ereira cover Damsels, Knights, Kings, Monks, Peasants, etc. The authors go into the scholarly evidence available on the day-to-day lives of these real people who have been mythologized for our entertainment.
For example, peasants were not living as terrible lives as the stereotype would have us believe. They had decent sized houses and lived in nuclear families with valuable goods like tableware and games to lock up and they ate pretty well. Knights spent a lot more time devoted to violent warfare than they did in rescuing “damsels.” Interesting note: the abduction of a lady was often arranged by the woman herself so she could be married to the man of her choice, not have her property given away by the king.
It's an enjoyable read and co-written by a member of one of my favorite television comedy teams. How could I refuse? Having said that, while the book has a few amusing moments, it's not Monty Python kind of funny. You'd be disappointed if you were expecting that.
The book's chapters are devoted to breaking down the archetypes that are used in films and books. Jones and Alan Ereira cover Damsels, Knights, Kings, Monks, Peasants, etc. The authors go into the scholarly evidence available on the day-to-day lives of these real people who have been mythologized for our entertainment.
For example, peasants were not living as terrible lives as the stereotype would have us believe. They had decent sized houses and lived in nuclear families with valuable goods like tableware and games to lock up and they ate pretty well. Knights spent a lot more time devoted to violent warfare than they did in rescuing “damsels.” Interesting note: the abduction of a lady was often arranged by the woman herself so she could be married to the man of her choice, not have her property given away by the king.
It's an enjoyable read and co-written by a member of one of my favorite television comedy teams. How could I refuse? Having said that, while the book has a few amusing moments, it's not Monty Python kind of funny. You'd be disappointed if you were expecting that.
December 22, 2013
I read this for my British Literature I class. I probably could’ve probably just skimmed it, but because it was easy to read, I read the whole thing. It is very crude in some parts, and I don't really know whether to believe everything the authors say. History is so easily biased, and someone is always trying to subvert common notions with a revisionist approach. The running thesis of this book is aimed at undermining whatever today’s common view is. This kind of premise gets old fast—it basically just says, “if you think one thing, it’s really the opposite.” While I recognize that it could be that way, the manner in which this is written makes me to distrust its credibility.
Although I didn’t like the book as a whole, the chapter on philosophers (a.k.a. science) was probably the most interesting. I like that it points out that a lot of the perceptions people have regarding the medieval Church being anti-science, thinking the world was flat, etc. are actually unsubstantiated and false. This book is not really pro-Catholic, though. Regarding some other things mentioned, I do know that there was corruption in the medieval church, but I don't trust these authors enough to believe their view of events.
Although I didn’t like the book as a whole, the chapter on philosophers (a.k.a. science) was probably the most interesting. I like that it points out that a lot of the perceptions people have regarding the medieval Church being anti-science, thinking the world was flat, etc. are actually unsubstantiated and false. This book is not really pro-Catholic, though. Regarding some other things mentioned, I do know that there was corruption in the medieval church, but I don't trust these authors enough to believe their view of events.
August 4, 2018
An incoherent mess. Jones sets out to correct various myths and misconceptions about ``Medieval'' (actually post-1066) England, but you're usually left guessing what misconceptions he believes you actually hold, and he ends up perpetuating many more than he could reasonably be said to correct; he presents folk tales (including, spectacularly, Robin Hood) as bare facts, mistakes one-off anecdotes for trends even when the original chroniclers explicitly only relate said anecdote because of its unusualness, and seems utterly allergic to putting things in any sort of context.
The result is a Gish gallop of trivially wrong trivia and half-truths of exactly the kind that Jones pretends to fight, hung on stale history-book events that, as acknowledged, provide no meaningful insight into people's actual lives. If you ever needed evidence that a lengthy bibliography does not a scholarly work make, this is it—pop history at its worst.
(There's a BBC show that goes along with this book, but I haven't watched it. If you're thinking of picking it up because Jones was in the Monty Pythons, you should know that every chapter in this book has exactly one joke put in it, and, like those of said Monty Pythons, maybe one or two of them land. I doubt the TV show pulls them off any better.)
The result is a Gish gallop of trivially wrong trivia and half-truths of exactly the kind that Jones pretends to fight, hung on stale history-book events that, as acknowledged, provide no meaningful insight into people's actual lives. If you ever needed evidence that a lengthy bibliography does not a scholarly work make, this is it—pop history at its worst.
(There's a BBC show that goes along with this book, but I haven't watched it. If you're thinking of picking it up because Jones was in the Monty Pythons, you should know that every chapter in this book has exactly one joke put in it, and, like those of said Monty Pythons, maybe one or two of them land. I doubt the TV show pulls them off any better.)
May 26, 2009
A general overview of the "Middle Ages" divided by categories of occupation. If you like learning about how history is distorted according to who is telling it, this is a nice book. Full of facts like how people in the Middle Ages did not think that the world was flat. Knights were not romantic figures, outlaws were glorified by everyday people, and even though 'trial by jury' was introduced at this time the jury would have included witnesses and the person that accused.
December 21, 2019
- I think this was written for a reader who knows a lot less than I and is looking for an easy intro to the subject
- I did appreciate that attempts were made to clear Richard II's name
- It wasn't awful or full of bullshit, truly. It was perfectly readable and I'm only moaning because I'm a pedant
- I did appreciate that attempts were made to clear Richard II's name
- It wasn't awful or full of bullshit, truly. It was perfectly readable and I'm only moaning because I'm a pedant
January 12, 2015
Aðgengilegur og skemmtilegur stíll. Minnti hálf á heimildamynd (það var líka gerð heimildaþáttaröð). En hún er samt bara rétt fjórar stjörnur.
February 27, 2017
Lovely little book that deals with all prejudices we might have about the Middle Ages.
February 14, 2020
I thought this would have more humor/color to it, but it read like plain jane history. Personally I will stick to my history podcasts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 245 reviews