The Serf, the Knight, and the Historian

by Dominique Barthélemy, Graham Robert Edwards (Translator)

"The term 'feudal society' is a caricature. It was invented by nineteenth-century historians to capture a particular period in French history, that of the retreat of monarchy (and thus of state authority) and the supposed tyranny of fiefdoms. It had its uses. As caricatures go, it was no worse than many others. But it was both reductionist and unbalanced. Among other things, it reduced society to bonds of dependency that were ritualized and personalized, and it imagined a scenario of quasi-independent castles, each with its own knights, existing in a state of continuous warfare with one another. It largely ignored other links and networks, and it overlooked the fact that warfare between neighbors was intermittent and limited. Meanwhile, in the real world, apart from such conflict-though sometimes through it-social construction was going on."―Dominique Barthélemy In a collection of combative essays, updated for this new translation, Dominique Barthélemy presents a sharply revisionist account of the history of France around the Year 1000. He challenges the view, developed in the enormously influential writings of Georges Duby and others, that France underwent a kind of revolution at the millennium that transformed it into the classic feudal, or seigneurial, society we know from a host of college textbooks. Barthélemy advances his own original views, positing a much more complex and incremental evolution, and maintaining that the post-Carolingian world was more dynamic and creative than Duby and his successors have held. Barthélemy's view requires historians to radically rethink their notions of the history of serfs and nobles, of the so-called Peace of God movements, of the influence (indeed, even the existence) of millenarian fears, and of the nature of the legal system in early medieval Europe. Moreover, it challenges the utility of the term "feudalism" itself, and of our notion that Europe of the High Middle Ages was a "feudal society." Originally published in French under the title "La mutation de l'an mil a-t-elle eu lieu?," this book has generated loud debate on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to having been revised throughout, the Cornell edition contains a new preface, concluding chapter, and bibliography.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, France

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Cynthia · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first portion of the book, dealing with serfs, was truly fascinating to me and I enjoyed learning and then understanding the traditional / old school view of feudal society, the more modern view that the author is critiquing (quite passionately), and the author's position on how we should really be interpreting events in France around the year 1000. I especially appreciated getting a more nuanced look at what serfdom really meant to people of the time - high school history left me with a very simplistic view (serf = poor folks, bottom of feudal society) and I loved that he analyzes legal contracts of the time to give a more in-depth, colorful (possibly controversial) understanding of serfdom. The sections on knights and on the understanding of events around the year 1000 were also interesting, if less riveting to me personally.

However, I am not an academic and this book was most certainly not meant for easy reading outside of academia! It was a tough, tough slog to get through. It's taken me three attempts over 7+ years to actually complete the book! So although I suspect I'd give the book four or five stars if I was a medieval historian, I'd give it three stars for the curious but non-academic reader. Perhaps an apology is owed for the low rating - The fault, dear reader, is not in our stars but in ourselves...