"Foul
as it is Hell itself is defiled by the fouler presence of King John,” wrote the
monkish chronicler, Matthew Paris.
One
wonders whether today’s ‘post Leveson’ press would indulge in invective like
this – even against safe- to-attack hate
figures like Nixon, Thatcher and Murdoch. The question is how history will
eventually come to view them. It comes down, of course, to who writes the
history. What we do know is that legends have their own momentum, and stories
sometimes trump facts.
Seven
hundred years later the historian J R Green would write of King John:
“In
his inner soul John was the worst outcome of the Angevins…his punishments were
refinements of cruelty, the starvation of children, the crushing of old men
under copes of lead.” - And my favourite - “His court was a brothel where no
woman was safe from the royal lust.” The image is wonderful, the foul John, lurking
in shadow, poised to pounce on unsuspecting wenches. And yet J R Green’s
opinion is based on just two chroniclers who wrote ten years or more after
John’s death. Note, too, the plural - ‘the crushing of old men under copes of
lead’ - as if it was a royal past time indulged in on rainy days.
Roger of Wendover, the other
chronicler, may have written his chronicle ten years after John’s death, but he
was blessed with acute, extra sensory powers in his ability to recall the
king’s exact words whenever the occasion demands. Thus we know John’s favourite
oath: ‘God’s teeth!” Who knows, it could catch on.
He tells
good stories like, for instance, how he daily knocked out the tooth of a Jew
from Bristol
until he revealed where his treasure was hidden, how he threatened to slit the
noses of papal servants and take out their eyes.
Roger doesn’t let a good story get in the way of
facts. Thus, in the same chronicle we hear of the small black pig that sucks a
woman dry because she took in washing on a Sunday; the loaf of bread baked on a
Sunday, which ran with blood when cut. And, if you’re interested, there is an
eighteen page description of the experience of a peasant called Thurkhill from
the village of Twinstead
in Essex who in 1206 was given a guided tour
of Purgatory and Hell by St. Julian. The
problem is stories like these are recounted with the same authority as those he
writes of King John.
We can’t prove a small black pig didn’t suck a
woman dry, but we can check on the stories he tells of John. So, in 1209,
according to Roger, John ordered the crushing of Geoffrey, Archdeacon of
Norwich under a cope of lead. That same Geoffrey of Norwich became Bishop of
Ely in 1225.
And those we can’t check on we can deconstruct:
“About that time the servants of a certain
sheriff on the confines of Wales came to the royal court bringing in their
custody a robber with his hands tied behind his back, who had robbed and
murdered a priest on the Highway; and when they asked the king how he wished
such cases to be dealt with, her replied at once, “He has slain an enemy of
mine, loose him and let him go.”
Even if
we didn’t know that Royal Records ordered the hanging from the nearest oak tree
of anyone who injured a member of the clergy by word or deed, the story itself
is deeply flawed. The chronicler is vague about when it took place, who
the Sheriff was, and where about in Wales
it all took place, yet he knows the exact words of the king.
The key factor behind all these particular
chronicles is that King John quarrelled with the Church. Churchmen fulminated
against his immorality, so royal officials kidnapped their ‘unofficial’ wives
and held them for ransom. The church went on strike. John took some comfort
from the fact that most people didn’t’ seem to notice or care. It also came
with a bonus that John as feudal overlord could seize ‘church’ land since, by
striking, they’d broken their feudal contract. All in all it made for a pretty
quarrel, which accounts for the venom in these chronicles and puts one in mind
of contemporary events.
It is up to the reader to take sides: an over
powerful church against a tyrannical king, a powerful press baron against an
even more powerful establishment. Truth falls casualty to both sides. In
Pilate’s words ‘Truth? What is truth?’
4 comments:
It's a little easier now with video, but even that can be cleverly edited to prove the teller's side.
And as all politicians know, tell a lie long enough (and better yet with social media) and it becomes truth.
The masses rarely care to investigate past the glossy surface.
Pictures tell a thousand untruths, Maria. You're right. Ref social media, Hitler knew a crowd amplified the message, deafening the individual thought. Twitter and the new media are just bringing this up to date
Who writes history, makes history. Sadly, people believe what they are told. It's easier than seeking the truth.
Linda, this will prove fascinating in the upcoming commemorations of the First World War. Who caused the war is a question that will never find a definitive answer, though I have my opinions
Post a Comment