Angehefteter Tweet
๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ข๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐
(but itโs more comprehensive than my usual book reviews):
All books about Richard will be based on the primary sources, that means the contemporary chroniclers.
And thatโs where the first issue starts.
The contemporary chroniclers can be classified in pro Richard and anti Richard (pro Philippe, them haters), there are also the neutrals but being neutral was really not that easy. Roger of Howden used to be more neutral but he had a falling out with Richard and ever since became more hostile in his writing. So it was very easy to swing ways depending on politics, personal relationships or just where you stood.
So like today, you have different agendas.
When we say โprimary sourcesโ people imagine something objective, but what you actually have is a group of very real people, writing in real time, with loyalties, frustrations and opinions.
Going directly to a primary source may be a bit of a difficult task to start learning about Richard.
Good news is that most of their work has been preserved nicely, which is honestly incredible. But it is not easy to interpret the chroniclers due to these different agendas, the medieval languages, and the fact that they assume you already understand the political situation theyโre talking about.
Sometimes they donโt even explain things and they just move on, because to them it was obvious.
The primary sources division is like this (very simplified):
Pro Richard:
Itinerarium Regis Ricardi, Gesta Regis Ricardi and Ambroise
Neutral / more mixed:
Howden, William of Newburgh, Ralph of Diceto, Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad and Ibn al-Athir
Anti:
Rigord (pro Philippe)
At the time there was a lot of political propaganda and itโs plain hard to follow them, so to decide who was telling the truth you need a filter, thatโs where modern historians come in handy.
Step 1: choose your filter
But now we are relying on non contemporary people to interpret the primary sources, and that brings in the issue of presentism and anachronism. Every historian reads the past through their own time.
When I say modern historians I mean anything since the Victorian era. But the presentism in the Victorian era was extreme and they decided that since Richard hadnโt spent enough time in England he was BAD, and books started reading more anti.
And that interpretation stuck for a long time, which is why Richardโs reputation can feel all over the place depending on what you read.
Option 1: the academic approach
Itโs really difficult to interpret the primary sources and decide who was telling the truth and thatโs exactly what John Gillingham did and did an amazing job. Heโs the academic authority on Richard.
What he does well is not picking a side blindly, he actually works through the contradictions.
Having read other modern historians I can still say Gillingham is the best option.
William Ian Miller is too simple, Bartlett is more pessimistic and can lean heavily critical.
Jean Flori is the other great option. The problem with Flori is that he tries very hard to not be seen as pro Richard and in doing so falls sometimes into the same mistakes historians in the early 1900s did. However this is still a great book that weights Richardโs image of chivalry against the expectations at the time.
Option 2: the novelistic approach
Sharon Kay Penman has been regarded as a historian writing history as a novel. You will be reading Richardโs true history as a narrative that feels alive, with little to no invention compared to most fiction.
She gives you something the academic books donโt always give: the emotional and human side.
Still, this needs to be complemented with an academic book.
Now you have a strong base to understand Richard. Not just what happened, but how itโs being told.
English
