Richard Barber first published The Knight and Chivalry in 1970. At the time, not a whole lot had been written on the subject of chivalry. Thus, Barber can be viewed is sort of an original scholarly writer on this subject matter. His work is extensive. In this particular book he covers the following concepts: the transition of the Knight from mounted warrior, chivalry and literature, chivalry in the field, chivalry in religion, and finally, chivalry in the state. All five parts present pages of rich text. However, I will be dealing specifically on the concept of chivalry and literature. My reason is this: to the reading it was done in MDVL 145, heroes and villains, I am more inclined to look at the author's own ideas in relation to other literature circa the 12th century, in a critical manner. Thus the purpose.
             I already mentioned that the book carries a wide spectrum of ideas in continent. In dealing with the book as another piece of useful text, is important to look at the detail of the Barber puts into the subjects that he's addressing. In this, the important aspects are covered. He doesn't bore the reader with over detailing and repetition subject matter. However, at the same time the reader never feel like something was left out, or a confusion about the important links between literature and chivalry. The detail is lined with eloquence. One on the subject of chivalry, Barber wrote, "the ideals of chivalry appealed to the motions, and the forest best in a Gothic and romantic climate; neoclassicism appeals to reason and to the sense of order."
             In such a wide range of book, and make things difficult for the reader to distinguish such variations in concept, rained, and period of time. I think this is why Barber begins the book by setting a foundation no idea of what Knight and is, and what exactly represents. In doing so, of course, [the author] establishes a great deal of history post the era of chivalry ...