I keep reading books that I don't know if I should officially include in my 52 Books in 52 weeks challenge. So far I've read a short children's Christmas novella out loud to my nine year old. And then I reread a young adult novel about St. Augustine of Canterbury. The two adult books I started, I haven't been able to finish! I read this book, William the Conqueror, in conjunction with my 15 year old's history studies. It is only 76 pages long! It is more like a very long essay. But I guess I'll review it and then I can revise my book numbers at the end of the year.
The issue of bias in history keeps cropping up in my life lately. And it reared its perplexing head while reading this book too. Mr. Belloc is very biased for William the Conqueror. The back cover states that as a result of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 "England was thence-forward to be knit over more closely into the unity of European Christian civilization - not a political unity, but a unity of culture and civilization, of which the soul was the Catholic Faith." This book is published by TAN which is a popular Catholic company.
I do understand how the Norman Conquest changed England's history, but I don't see quite as clearly what it had to do with the Catholic faith. There were already mostly Catholics living in England at the time. Belloc tries really hard to paint England as half-heathen, but the truth is Catholicism was thriving there and had been for a long time. England had suffered many invasions over the course of her history. She'd first been settle by Celts who got invaded by the Romans. Then the Angles and Saxons as well as other tribes came down from what is now Germany and invaded and settle there. Belloc treats them as the 'natives.' And by 1066 they were, since they'd been established there for so long. Then the Danes invaded. The Danes however started intermarrying with the ruling classes of Anglo-Saxons. Then came William the last invasion of all. The problem was that the different tribes and ruling families of either Anglo-Saxon or Danish or whatever descent kept fighting and jockeying for power. There was great disunity in that way. William the Conqueror managed to crush almost everybody (but not quite completely) into submission.
Belloc writes very well. He reminded me a bit of Chesterton and for some reason William F. Buckley, in his writing style. I know he's a very popular author among Chestertonians and I am very late getting familiar with him. I am planning to read his book The Path to Rome a little later this month (when my daughter goes to Rome for a semester with her University class.) This book was published first in 1934, so the writing style feels a bit older. Belloc is very eloquent and erudite. However, certain things bugged me about the book. 1) The blatant bias 2) Lack of footnotes. Belloc would assert all kinds of things but there were absolutely no references to check. I guess we just have to take his word for it!
After reading the book, Josh, the other teen who meets with us, and myself all sat down and watched the BBC video by Simon Schama entitled Conquest. This is part of Schama's A History of Britain. While Schama couldn't go into as much detail in a TV show as Belloc could in a book, it was interesting to see how differently each man portrayed William the Conqueror. Belloc asserts that William wasn't really a 'conqueror' because he was simply claiming his rightful place as king of England. Schama simply relates the confusing facts. Edward the Confessor sent conflicting messages as to who should succeed him, William or Harold. Belloc portrays Edward as weak but holy. Schama portrays him as more politically astute and becoming more and more religious as he dealt with unsavory political situations that boxed in his power. Both men portray Godwin (or Godwinson) as manipulative and brutal.
As to the character of William the Conqueror himself, Belloc excuses any brutality or excessive violence on William's part, even to the point of just being confused about why William did some things. They just didn't fit with Belloc's view of him as the noble knight of Catholicism. Schama explains why he became so brutal; he was an illegitimate son whose father died, leaving him vulnerable in a court of dangerous intrigue (William saw his own steward murdered before his eyes at the age of 10.) But Schama doesn't hesitate to call him brutal. He admires the great things he did, but he doesn't mince facts about the bad stuff he did either. Schama tells us briefly about what different historians think, but then he relies on a Norman monk's history written very shortly after the Conquest. He also relies heavily on the retelling of the Battle in the Bayeaux Tapestry.
One thing I did like about Belloc's book is how he explained how the political and economic system developed in England from the time of the Romans, and much of its development was influenced by the Roman organization of property and trade. However, I thought it interesting to note that Belloc places the brilliant administrative stroke of compiling the Domesday book squarely in William's corner, whereas Schama notes that William couldn't have collected the information so quickly (within six months of the invasion) if the Anglo-Saxons hadn't kept such meticulous records. To Schama the Domesday book is a tribute to the Saxons' organizational skills as much as to William's.
Belloc is much softer about the circumstances surrounding the Conqueror's death. The king was weakening because of poor health. He was beginning to be defeated in little skirmishes for power which kept cropping up around England and Normandy. His horse stumbled during a battle and the saddle pommel got pushed into his gut. He suffered internal injuries which caused his death a couple weeks later. Belloc takes the reputed confession of William's sins at his deathbed as fact. Schama says we don't know if they were real or if someone put those words into his mouth. He died without leaving an appointed heir. Schama points out that when he died, no one even bothered to bury him. His corpse was abandoned while everyone rushed off to secure their own property and get ready for the inevitable fighting for power that lay ahead. Finally, some servants buried him.
No comments:
Post a Comment