Norman Cantor (1991) takes the various approaches to medieval
historiography and uses them to illustrate scholarship in general, and
from there draws a number of interesting conclusions about modern
politics, religion, and social life (Cantor, 410-414). Cantor got in
trouble for writing this work. While 80% of this work is brilliant
scholarship, the other 20% make the tabloids look like peer-reviewed
journals! The subtitle of the book should read "Professor Guilty of Sex
Scandal: Cantor Tells All!" Then again, that is also why the book is
so highly entertaining. After reading this book one may legitimately
talk trash about various historians. Just kidding...sort of.
The
study of the middle ages in the twentieth century was a microcosm of
the larger battle for Western civilization. We see the Hegelian
dialectic at work in which the culturally conservative U.S. Government
was funding radical left-wing schools in France whose only merit was
they were not politically active Communists. We see conservative
reactions in the Formalist school, yet even this school merely asserted
cultural conservatism--it never defined it at its roots.
Cantor
discusses the various approaches to medieval historiography:
functionalism, fantasy, the proto-Nazi approach, the French Jewish
annales school, and the American school (with a few others).
This
review will simply highlight his take on CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien,
arguably the two most popular writers in the English language in the
twentieth century. Secondary attention is given to the American School.
The Oxford Fantasists
This
is probably the most famous part of the book. Cantor discusses the two
most beloved writers of the English language in the twentieth century:
Clive Staples Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien. Their project is simple: draw
upon the glories of medieval culture to rebuilt the shattered England
from the ashes of WWII. While they accomplished no such goal, few can
deny the staggering impact they have had on readers across the world.
It
is at this point in the narrative that scholarly conservatives (and
evangelicals in particular) will cry "shenanigans!" Cantor suggests
Lewis was sexually repressed and was unable to consummate his marriage
for several months, only to have his wife forcibly seduce him (211).
The first problem with this statement is the obvious one: evidence?
None. The suspected culprit is nearby, however. One suspects Cantor is
relying upon the speculations of Ian Wilson, who bore no love for
Lewis. Yet, does not Cantor also admit that Wilson failed in the basics
of scholarly research and the demonstration of evidence (Cantor, 430)?
Why should we take Wilson seriously?
The American School
The
American school is the ideological brainchild of Woodrow Wilson. Its
particular historical methods are not that important. On the other
hand, Woodrow Wilson's worldview has dominated American politics (and by
extension, literally the rest of the world) for 90 years. Not
surprisingly, we see the American medieval history school as a
justification for post-Christian Western politics.
The actual
historical arguments by representatives Strayer and others are not that
interesting, except for this: it is a specific justification of the
Norman invasion of England, and the replacing of Saxon culture with a
specifically Norman and Papal culture (269). And I say this as a personal descendant of William the Conqueror. Such a task also involves a
rewriting of the "other" culture's history. Interestingly, Strayer was
also a CIA asset (262). One cannot help but speculate on the
connections between Wilsonian progressivism, Norman and Frankish
historiography, and the CIA: all of which contribute to the
relativising of traditional communities around the world (at least
today).
Conclusion:
The book is outrageous because of its
daring. Part of it is brilliant historiography, the rest of it is
scandalous tabloid. Let's be honest: few can deny the book's
entertaining value. Fewer still can deny its scholarly arguments.
Indeed, we followed his arguments because he tied them in with the moral
peccadilloes of most of his comrades. Granted, I think he overdid it,
nor do I ascribe the same normative and omnipotent value to
psychoanalysis, especially the sexual aspects.
On the other hand,
this book is a must read in terms of historiography. It should be
mandated in all freshman history and liberal arts classes. It is
interdisciplinary in character and demonstrates the best ways to
integrate various fields.
