siria's review against another edition
3.0
A slim volume that will provide undergraduate students with a useful introduction to the concept of medievalism, and how ideas about the Middle Ages have been politicised, fetishised, and mythologised over many centuries.
However, the brevity and relative simplicity that makes it useful in the college classroom also means that The Devil’s Historians should only ever be used as an introductory starting point, not as the last word—many topics are presented in a simplified manner, and perhaps sometimes overly simplified. There are also times when Kaufman and Sturtevant gild the lily a bit too much in their attempt to demolish the popular preconception of Middle Ages as a brutish inversion of an enlightened modernity. I’m sympathetic to that, though, knowing how hard I’ve had to work at times to convince students that medieval women could have any agency at all. Just getting people to understand that, say, Hildegard of Bingen was a highly influential intellectual force can be enough of a lift without trying to get into the nuances of how she was also a quite conservative thinker in many ways. (See, for instance, some of the statements made by other reviewers on this site who critique Kaufman and Sturtevant based on their own misconceptions about the Middle Ages.)
There are also some uncritical repetitions of some things that are dubiously historical (e.g. I know a number of Islamic historians who get frustrated by the characterisation of al-Qarawiyyin as a 9th-century university (17); there’s a vague reference to what I presume has to be Boswell’s argument about adelphopoiia (24) as if it’s historical fact rather than a very contentious theory), some factual mistakes an editor should have caught (the former leader of the SNP is Alex Salmond, not Andy Salmon), and some really weird conflations (the framing at one point (122) makes it seem as if asexuality and celibacy are the same thing, which is incorrect.)
If you’re new to this topic, you will likely find some stuff in The Devil’s Historians that’s eye-opening and of interest. However, I’d make use of the notes/list of further reading provided to go further rather than stopping here.
However, the brevity and relative simplicity that makes it useful in the college classroom also means that The Devil’s Historians should only ever be used as an introductory starting point, not as the last word—many topics are presented in a simplified manner, and perhaps sometimes overly simplified. There are also times when Kaufman and Sturtevant gild the lily a bit too much in their attempt to demolish the popular preconception of Middle Ages as a brutish inversion of an enlightened modernity. I’m sympathetic to that, though, knowing how hard I’ve had to work at times to convince students that medieval women could have any agency at all. Just getting people to understand that, say, Hildegard of Bingen was a highly influential intellectual force can be enough of a lift without trying to get into the nuances of how she was also a quite conservative thinker in many ways. (See, for instance, some of the statements made by other reviewers on this site who critique Kaufman and Sturtevant based on their own misconceptions about the Middle Ages.)
There are also some uncritical repetitions of some things that are dubiously historical (e.g. I know a number of Islamic historians who get frustrated by the characterisation of al-Qarawiyyin as a 9th-century university (17); there’s a vague reference to what I presume has to be Boswell’s argument about adelphopoiia (24) as if it’s historical fact rather than a very contentious theory), some factual mistakes an editor should have caught (the former leader of the SNP is Alex Salmond, not Andy Salmon), and some really weird conflations (the framing at one point (122) makes it seem as if asexuality and celibacy are the same thing, which is incorrect.)
If you’re new to this topic, you will likely find some stuff in The Devil’s Historians that’s eye-opening and of interest. However, I’d make use of the notes/list of further reading provided to go further rather than stopping here.
millie_yule's review
2.0
Very disappointing book. I only gave it two stars because the bit about Christian extremists in American was vaguely interesting. Besides the total focus on America and the poor writing style, my main problem with this book was that the authors presented theories as facts. There was very little footnoting at all (probs 1 footnote per double page) which made me very dubious of their ideas. No studies were cited and academic books were mentioned briefly as a way to say “look there are diverse historians talking about diverse topics” - no reference was made to the content of their work. It was also hilarious that the epilogue of the book was like “there are so many versions of the Middle Ages to learn about in places other than Europe such as India and China” when it didn’t discuss them at all.
There was a lot of cart-before-the-horse thinking where the authors pulled up right-wing extremists (and it was very notable they only talked about the right wing) and then made tangential connections to why they are obsessed with the Middle Ages. Whilst this was, to my knowledge, justified in the discussion of the KKK, it seemed that the authors were pulling at straws when discussing any extremist groups around the world (e.g. they claimed the that EDL toting the St George‘s flag was proof of them being obsessed with the Medieval when it’s literally just the English flag).
The chapter on the status of women especially (that ironically mainly discusses men for all its wokeness) makes sweeping and questionable statements. My favourites include “many women were polymaths” and “the portrayal of gritty, filthy, brutal masculinity and passive, victimised femininity in the Middle Ages is a modern fantasy”. Neither of these statements are debated despite the latter literally being the core debate at the centre of much academic feminist discussion. The former statement is a prime example of how the book only discusses noble women. It was such a painful chapter to read.
Finally, despite the book’s title, there is was no substantial discussion of how actual academics theorise the Middle Ages and how this is influenced by their own biases. I thought that was what the book was about! Very disappointing it was just a whistle-stop tour through the white supremacists and Muslim extremist groups through the west instead of discussion of how HISTORICAL THEORY influences them.
All in all it was very much like reading a Tumblr post where the poster wanted to convince their followers that the Middle Ages was actually rad and cool and a golden age of equality despite the fact it really wasn’t.
There was a lot of cart-before-the-horse thinking where the authors pulled up right-wing extremists (and it was very notable they only talked about the right wing) and then made tangential connections to why they are obsessed with the Middle Ages. Whilst this was, to my knowledge, justified in the discussion of the KKK, it seemed that the authors were pulling at straws when discussing any extremist groups around the world (e.g. they claimed the that EDL toting the St George‘s flag was proof of them being obsessed with the Medieval when it’s literally just the English flag).
The chapter on the status of women especially (that ironically mainly discusses men for all its wokeness) makes sweeping and questionable statements. My favourites include “many women were polymaths” and “the portrayal of gritty, filthy, brutal masculinity and passive, victimised femininity in the Middle Ages is a modern fantasy”. Neither of these statements are debated despite the latter literally being the core debate at the centre of much academic feminist discussion. The former statement is a prime example of how the book only discusses noble women. It was such a painful chapter to read.
Finally, despite the book’s title, there is was no substantial discussion of how actual academics theorise the Middle Ages and how this is influenced by their own biases. I thought that was what the book was about! Very disappointing it was just a whistle-stop tour through the white supremacists and Muslim extremist groups through the west instead of discussion of how HISTORICAL THEORY influences them.
All in all it was very much like reading a Tumblr post where the poster wanted to convince their followers that the Middle Ages was actually rad and cool and a golden age of equality despite the fact it really wasn’t.
theinquisitxor's review against another edition
2.0
This is a difficult book to rate and review. As someone who studied history and focused on the Middle Ages, I learned and worked on projects surrounding this topic. It is something I feel very passionate about. I love helping educate people on the Middle Ages and helping them understand history better. I feel very strongly about this topic and I was excited to finally get my hands on this book.
From a scholarly perspective, this book is basically worthless. That's a little harsh, but the formatting, research, and references are not at the level they should be. I don't think I would ever cite this book in actual scholarly work. There are not enough references, nor do the authors show where/how they got their information.
One of the reviews say that this book reads more like someone's tumblr post and, sadly, yeah. It kinda does. Things are not well researched, planned, or formatted. I don't want to get into a rant-y review, but I was very disappointed at something like this out of University of Toronto Press. The scholarship surrounding this topic should be doing much more, especially books like this that are reaching the mainstream a little more than most scholarly publications.
Overall, very disappointed by what I assumed was going to be a great work on an important, pressing matter in the field and in current events.
From a scholarly perspective, this book is basically worthless. That's a little harsh, but the formatting, research, and references are not at the level they should be. I don't think I would ever cite this book in actual scholarly work. There are not enough references, nor do the authors show where/how they got their information.
One of the reviews say that this book reads more like someone's tumblr post and, sadly, yeah. It kinda does. Things are not well researched, planned, or formatted. I don't want to get into a rant-y review, but I was very disappointed at something like this out of University of Toronto Press. The scholarship surrounding this topic should be doing much more, especially books like this that are reaching the mainstream a little more than most scholarly publications.
Overall, very disappointed by what I assumed was going to be a great work on an important, pressing matter in the field and in current events.
More...