Review: The Last Knight, by Cantor
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:16 am
Picked this book up a couple of weeks ago, because of an interest in the Lancastrian milleu. The book focuses on John of Gaunt, but like most books of any length about an individual of those times, it rambled through a variety of topics, ranging from women to religion to warfare.
I have to admit that within twenty pages (giving him time to get up some steam) I realized that Dr. Cantor had written a gloss for the masses. I went ahead, anyway, figuring that as a BA in History I had no business pushing away what a fellow who had walked the walk for fifty years had to say on a topic.
There were several errors within the body of his work--the one which stuck out most solidly was the "Knightly horses were akin to Clydesdales" statement. The lack of footnoting of course is the hallmark of a light work, though the long list of sources in the back were worth looking over--it's too bad that the strong synthesis that could have been made by a rigorous analysis of those sources was missing.
To his credit, Dr. Cantor can reel out readable material, however, and despite my misgivings, I was able to bring out a couple of good gems, for example the Lollard movement, and the failed insurrection by Sir John Oldcastle. Further, Dr. Cantor's passive-aggressive interest and distaste for the elite resulted in a good impression of John of Gaunt as comparable to a multi-billionare today. Some interesting tidbits, for example he cites that it was an old custom that the lord of the hall was the only person with the right to urinate at table. Or that John of Gaunt considered L33 as "pocket money."
I would categorize this book as a gateway book. If you find yourself asking questions that Dr. Cantor's prose doesn't answer, then good. Unfortunately, you won't be able to tie in your question of his text to any of his sources, because as I said the book is not footnoted.
John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
I have to admit that within twenty pages (giving him time to get up some steam) I realized that Dr. Cantor had written a gloss for the masses. I went ahead, anyway, figuring that as a BA in History I had no business pushing away what a fellow who had walked the walk for fifty years had to say on a topic.
There were several errors within the body of his work--the one which stuck out most solidly was the "Knightly horses were akin to Clydesdales" statement. The lack of footnoting of course is the hallmark of a light work, though the long list of sources in the back were worth looking over--it's too bad that the strong synthesis that could have been made by a rigorous analysis of those sources was missing.
To his credit, Dr. Cantor can reel out readable material, however, and despite my misgivings, I was able to bring out a couple of good gems, for example the Lollard movement, and the failed insurrection by Sir John Oldcastle. Further, Dr. Cantor's passive-aggressive interest and distaste for the elite resulted in a good impression of John of Gaunt as comparable to a multi-billionare today. Some interesting tidbits, for example he cites that it was an old custom that the lord of the hall was the only person with the right to urinate at table. Or that John of Gaunt considered L33 as "pocket money."
I would categorize this book as a gateway book. If you find yourself asking questions that Dr. Cantor's prose doesn't answer, then good. Unfortunately, you won't be able to tie in your question of his text to any of his sources, because as I said the book is not footnoted.
John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus