What do you think?
Medieval England, 1066-1485,
Medieval England 1066-1485 (Home University Library)
287 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1969
About the author
F.M. Powicke
33 books3 followersSir Frederick Maurice Powicke, historian who taught at Belfast, Manchester and Oxford. He specialised in medieval history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
May 6, 2013
An enormous amount of information is packed into this small book. It is not easily summarized since that would be to oversimplify the book but Powicke's point that most stands out for me is that there is an unusual continuity in English history:
"[T]here is something almost unique in English history: a quality of uninterruptedness, in spite of the incessant play of foreign influence, which makes it impossible for us to draw a hard-and-fast line between the medieval and the modern world."
A couple of pages later he notes, "The Conquest gave an entirely new direction to English history, but it was unable to break its continuity."
He believes that the period is "the story of the tentative steps or stumbles in the process of conscious legal organization of society." But he asserts that this was not strictly a matter of conflict (barons vs. monarch, local vs. national). I think that it is the lack of these simple dichotomies of interest during the time that accounts for the continuities. But again, his argument is complex.
"[T]here is something almost unique in English history: a quality of uninterruptedness, in spite of the incessant play of foreign influence, which makes it impossible for us to draw a hard-and-fast line between the medieval and the modern world."
A couple of pages later he notes, "The Conquest gave an entirely new direction to English history, but it was unable to break its continuity."
He believes that the period is "the story of the tentative steps or stumbles in the process of conscious legal organization of society." But he asserts that this was not strictly a matter of conflict (barons vs. monarch, local vs. national). I think that it is the lack of these simple dichotomies of interest during the time that accounts for the continuities. But again, his argument is complex.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review