What do you think?
Rate this book
A Companion To Medieval England 1066-1485
Nigel Saul€™s A-Z of life in the Middle Ages is essential reading for anyone interested in the turbulent years between the arrival of William the Conqueror and the accession of Henry Tudor in 1485. Here in one volume is a mine of information on all the major aspects of medieval society and culture, giving a comprehensive picture of a world at once alien and familiar, whose way of life has long vanished, but whose visible remains survive all around us. Nigel Saul provides a wealth of examples to show how the great institutions of the age—the Church, the Crown, and the law—affected the lives of the English at all levels. Further entries catalogue the cultural legacy of the period, from castles and cathedrals to manuscripts, brasses, and stained glass.
319 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2000
About the author
Nigel Saul
29 books5 followersProfessor Nigel Saul (born 1952) is a British academic who was formerly the Head of the Department of History at Royal Holloway, University of London (RHUL). He is recognised as one of the leading experts in the history of medieval England.
Professor Saul has written numerous books including Knights and Esquires, The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), and The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval England (Oxford, 1997). His major biography Richard II (Yale, 1997) was the product of ten years' work and was acclaimed by P. D. James as "unlikely to be surpassed in scholarship, comprehensiveness, or in the biographer's insight into his subject's character".
Within Royal Holloway, Professor Saul is known for his somewhat right-wing political views. He has served as Honorary President of the college's Conservative Future Society.
Professor Saul has written numerous books including Knights and Esquires, The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), and The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval England (Oxford, 1997). His major biography Richard II (Yale, 1997) was the product of ten years' work and was acclaimed by P. D. James as "unlikely to be surpassed in scholarship, comprehensiveness, or in the biographer's insight into his subject's character".
Within Royal Holloway, Professor Saul is known for his somewhat right-wing political views. He has served as Honorary President of the college's Conservative Future Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 16, 2012
Originally published on my blog here in August 2000.
The introduction seems to imply that this book is aimed somewhere between those with an amateur and those with a professional interest in medieval history. This turns out to be a bit of a problem, and it becomes clear that Saul is not really sure at what level to pitch his writing to hit his target.
The articles are a little haphazard, though the criterion for what is to be covered seems to be related to what might be useful to, say, a local historian trying to make sense of what a church or a charter can tell them of the past of their own area. Thus, the kinds of things that are covered include government and law (terms which might be mentioned in documents such as "advowson"), and artefacts (coins, architecture and so on).
The book could have done with more cross references - the reader is unlikely to look under "government" if they are interested in Chancery, and Chancery has no article of its own. The coverage of some of the articles is rather idiosyncratic; the article on "government" already mentioned concentrates almost exclusively on finance, for example, which is not the only concern even of a medieval national government. (It has nothing to say about local government whatsoever.) There is a pro-clerical bias - quite minor English clerical figures are given articles, while the only non-royal nobleman to get one is Richard Neville Earl of Warwick (the "Kingmaker"). More about England's foreign affairs might have been interesting; information on this subject is mostly to be found in the articles on individual kings, other than the three specific articles on Scotland, Wales and the Hundred Years' War.
The book is rather slovenly produced, even having pages of different coloured paper. Proof reading seems to have been almost non-existent; one man has his name given differently in the title and the body of the article about him.
Though there is much in the book to criticise, most of the problems stem from the task Saul has set himself. Each of the long articles has to summarise material that could easily fill a book of its own, and in many cases the interested reader would want to consult such a book. (The coverage of archaeological subjects is of necessity too sketchy to allow a reader to perform a task like identifying a coin, for example.) This is provided for by the bibliography which accompanies each article, one of the best features of the book for a reader with access to a good library. As an encyclopaedia of the period, The Batsford Companion to Medieval England could be greatly improved, but it does contain much of interest.
The introduction seems to imply that this book is aimed somewhere between those with an amateur and those with a professional interest in medieval history. This turns out to be a bit of a problem, and it becomes clear that Saul is not really sure at what level to pitch his writing to hit his target.
The articles are a little haphazard, though the criterion for what is to be covered seems to be related to what might be useful to, say, a local historian trying to make sense of what a church or a charter can tell them of the past of their own area. Thus, the kinds of things that are covered include government and law (terms which might be mentioned in documents such as "advowson"), and artefacts (coins, architecture and so on).
The book could have done with more cross references - the reader is unlikely to look under "government" if they are interested in Chancery, and Chancery has no article of its own. The coverage of some of the articles is rather idiosyncratic; the article on "government" already mentioned concentrates almost exclusively on finance, for example, which is not the only concern even of a medieval national government. (It has nothing to say about local government whatsoever.) There is a pro-clerical bias - quite minor English clerical figures are given articles, while the only non-royal nobleman to get one is Richard Neville Earl of Warwick (the "Kingmaker"). More about England's foreign affairs might have been interesting; information on this subject is mostly to be found in the articles on individual kings, other than the three specific articles on Scotland, Wales and the Hundred Years' War.
The book is rather slovenly produced, even having pages of different coloured paper. Proof reading seems to have been almost non-existent; one man has his name given differently in the title and the body of the article about him.
Though there is much in the book to criticise, most of the problems stem from the task Saul has set himself. Each of the long articles has to summarise material that could easily fill a book of its own, and in many cases the interested reader would want to consult such a book. (The coverage of archaeological subjects is of necessity too sketchy to allow a reader to perform a task like identifying a coin, for example.) This is provided for by the bibliography which accompanies each article, one of the best features of the book for a reader with access to a good library. As an encyclopaedia of the period, The Batsford Companion to Medieval England could be greatly improved, but it does contain much of interest.
November 1, 2014
I can only tolerate so many incorrect facts and dates but I've just reached the entry about Eleanor of Aquitaine and the author claims she, "As a cultural figure, however, she may have been of some importance." MAY have? Be serious. I don't think whole biographies can be written about someone - a WOMAN no less, when women were not highly valued and thus little was recorded of their lives - from the 1100s and only be marginally important.
He also states that Eleanor's political achievements were slight - pretty sure that without Eleanor, Richard would never have made it out of captivity, and John would've ruined England completely and utterly, something he nearly managed anyway once he was actually crowned. So, I'm dunzo with this book, too many inaccuracies - especially when other sources I've read all give different info from this text.
And btw, Mr. Saul, Eleanor, in fact, was NOT the sole daughter of William X, though she was his heiress after her younger brother died. But she had a younger sister named Petronilla who caused quite the stir when Eleanor was queen of France. I expect more from someone who is a professor of medieval history.
He also states that Eleanor's political achievements were slight - pretty sure that without Eleanor, Richard would never have made it out of captivity, and John would've ruined England completely and utterly, something he nearly managed anyway once he was actually crowned. So, I'm dunzo with this book, too many inaccuracies - especially when other sources I've read all give different info from this text.
And btw, Mr. Saul, Eleanor, in fact, was NOT the sole daughter of William X, though she was his heiress after her younger brother died. But she had a younger sister named Petronilla who caused quite the stir when Eleanor was queen of France. I expect more from someone who is a professor of medieval history.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews