I really wanted to like this book. I have read Terry Jones' Barbarians and agreed with his premise that the Romans were the savages. I have also enjoyed Monty Python and the Holy Grail as well as Eric the Viking, although the excellence of the Holy Grail movie might be due to Terry Gilliam who also directed Time Bandits and The Fisher King, which I loved. However, this book falls very short of what it sets out to do: make a case for a possible death for Geoffrey Chaucer.
Although Jones admits often that there is little information about Chaucer's life and no comment about his death, this does not prevent him from proceeding as though his 'could have's' and 'possibly's' are facts. When one wants to prove a murder, one needs to use the very best facts that are available and, in the absence of facts that prove ones case, it is acceptable to admit the original premise is in error.
I was disappointed that Jones did not present a balanced view of the times in which Chaucer may have died: the aftermath of Henry IV's usurption of Richard II's throne and the upheaval that ensued as well as the increased tension between the Church Militant of the Archbishop Arundel and the followers of Wycliff who wanted a more personal relationship with God free from the heavy price in taxes paid to the church and without the translation of that relationship through deeply flawed and abusive clerics. The content of The Canterbury Tales and the images of the Ellesmere manuscript are not 'evidence' that Chaucer was a heretic and viewed by Arundel as such. Commonplaces like dying without a will or publishing a retraction of worldly literature are treated as powerfully damning evidence although they are not.
The good relationship that Chaucer's son Thomas enjoyed with the new regime is treated dismissively although it is very suggestive that Chaucer might not have been murdered by Henry or Arundel for heresy or collaboration with Richard II's government. He should have been a pariah not Henry's butler. Other contemporary accounts of the time, like Adam of Usk are treated dismissively as well and some like the Book of Margery Kempe are not consulted at all. I would like to have seen some comment about how Shakespeare treated the death of Richard II in his play about Henry IV as well as some discussion about where Shakespeare got his information. In fact the whole thrust of the argument says more about Terry Jones than it does about the politics of Archbishop Arundel or Henry IV.
He spent many pages in discussion about Dryden and not enough about Caxton, who published the Canterbury Tales in the first book published in England on a printing press. It was Caxton who paid for the first memorial in Westminster Abbey for the poet. It was on a later altar, paid for by a Nicholas Brigham, that we are given the date of October 25, 1400 as the date of Chaucer's death.
People who do not know much about late medieval history might be taken in by the argument but those same people would find this book a little dull because their lack of knowledge would also indicate a lack of interest in the period or the poet. People who have an interest in the period might find the one-sidedness of the discussion irritating. I did.
I realize Jones was having a bit of fun with history and I have often thought that people who write scholarly papers are rather humorless and should let their hair down a little. However, there is a difference between having a bit of fun and letting your imagination run away with you. I wanted less conjecture and more facts. This would have been better as a historical novel.
Although Jones admits often that there is little information about Chaucer's life and no comment about his death, this does not prevent him from proceeding as though his 'could have's' and 'possibly's' are facts. When one wants to prove a murder, one needs to use the very best facts that are available and, in the absence of facts that prove ones case, it is acceptable to admit the original premise is in error.
I was disappointed that Jones did not present a balanced view of the times in which Chaucer may have died: the aftermath of Henry IV's usurption of Richard II's throne and the upheaval that ensued as well as the increased tension between the Church Militant of the Archbishop Arundel and the followers of Wycliff who wanted a more personal relationship with God free from the heavy price in taxes paid to the church and without the translation of that relationship through deeply flawed and abusive clerics. The content of The Canterbury Tales and the images of the Ellesmere manuscript are not 'evidence' that Chaucer was a heretic and viewed by Arundel as such. Commonplaces like dying without a will or publishing a retraction of worldly literature are treated as powerfully damning evidence although they are not.
The good relationship that Chaucer's son Thomas enjoyed with the new regime is treated dismissively although it is very suggestive that Chaucer might not have been murdered by Henry or Arundel for heresy or collaboration with Richard II's government. He should have been a pariah not Henry's butler. Other contemporary accounts of the time, like Adam of Usk are treated dismissively as well and some like the Book of Margery Kempe are not consulted at all. I would like to have seen some comment about how Shakespeare treated the death of Richard II in his play about Henry IV as well as some discussion about where Shakespeare got his information. In fact the whole thrust of the argument says more about Terry Jones than it does about the politics of Archbishop Arundel or Henry IV.
He spent many pages in discussion about Dryden and not enough about Caxton, who published the Canterbury Tales in the first book published in England on a printing press. It was Caxton who paid for the first memorial in Westminster Abbey for the poet. It was on a later altar, paid for by a Nicholas Brigham, that we are given the date of October 25, 1400 as the date of Chaucer's death.
People who do not know much about late medieval history might be taken in by the argument but those same people would find this book a little dull because their lack of knowledge would also indicate a lack of interest in the period or the poet. People who have an interest in the period might find the one-sidedness of the discussion irritating. I did.
I realize Jones was having a bit of fun with history and I have often thought that people who write scholarly papers are rather humorless and should let their hair down a little. However, there is a difference between having a bit of fun and letting your imagination run away with you. I wanted less conjecture and more facts. This would have been better as a historical novel.
I realize Jones was having a bit of fun with history and I have often thought that people who write scholarly papers are rather humorless and should let their hair down a little. However, there is a difference between having a bit of fun and letting your imagination run away with you. I wanted less conjecture and more facts.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your summary. It seems the author mixed two ideas which are like oil and water - immiscible. Either you write historical fiction, with the firm emphasis on fiction, or you write a historical book and you stick to the facts. Of course few historians can presents dry facts in an entertaining manner but too much conjecture is hardly entertaining.