The book I have chosen to compare reviews for is Birgit and Peter Sawyer’s Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to Reformation circa 800-1500. This paper compares two reviews of this book, one by Ruth Mazo Karras who takes a more positive approach in The American Historical Review, and the other by Frederic Amory who in turn leaves a much more critical review in Speculum.
Both reviewers commend the Sawyers for their resourcefulness and agree that their writing is more interpretive in some parts.However, they differ in that Amory believes that the work does not cover enough ground on the Old Norse and ignores the psychology of the people and focuses more on the their basic facts of life, while Karras is much more positive, saying that while …show more content…
In her opinion, the book is extremely useful for teaching about Scandinavia on a large European scale. While she agrees that the mentality of the people is more interpretive and is not the main focus, she commends the work on its ability to fill in the gaps of the influence of subjects based more on facts and material considerations such as what affects the economy had on the government and power of the church.(151) Other examples include how the Sawyers focus more on the practical influence of religious orders, and their leading figures, had rather than their spiritual influence.(150)
Amory on the other hand heavily criticised the main use of practical influences and expresses his wishes that Peter Sawyer would focus more on the lives of lower class nobles and the peasantry with their role in the conversion to Christianity rather than generalizing and focusing on kings.(422) He also criticizes Sawyer’s optimistic approach to the rise of peasantry from tenant farmers to landowners and their concepts of, “freedom,” instead of being more realistic about how most people ended up back to lower levels of society during hard
Both reviewers commend the Sawyers for their resourcefulness and agree that their writing is more interpretive in some parts.However, they differ in that Amory believes that the work does not cover enough ground on the Old Norse and ignores the psychology of the people and focuses more on the their basic facts of life, while Karras is much more positive, saying that while …show more content…
In her opinion, the book is extremely useful for teaching about Scandinavia on a large European scale. While she agrees that the mentality of the people is more interpretive and is not the main focus, she commends the work on its ability to fill in the gaps of the influence of subjects based more on facts and material considerations such as what affects the economy had on the government and power of the church.(151) Other examples include how the Sawyers focus more on the practical influence of religious orders, and their leading figures, had rather than their spiritual influence.(150)
Amory on the other hand heavily criticised the main use of practical influences and expresses his wishes that Peter Sawyer would focus more on the lives of lower class nobles and the peasantry with their role in the conversion to Christianity rather than generalizing and focusing on kings.(422) He also criticizes Sawyer’s optimistic approach to the rise of peasantry from tenant farmers to landowners and their concepts of, “freedom,” instead of being more realistic about how most people ended up back to lower levels of society during hard