I love revisionist history, almost as much as I am addicted to new ways of exegising biblical texts. Don’t tell me what I already know, I plead; tell me something I don’t know.
Completely satisfying my appetite, I have just finished listening (thanks to the marvels of a modern local library system that offers free borrowable and downloadable audiobooks to my iphone) to two works by journalist-cum-author G. J. Meyer: “The Tudors: the complete story of England’s most notorius dynastery” and “The Borgias: the hidden history”. Both histories are firmly in the ‘revisionist’ camp, and a good thing too. The Tudors needed taking down a peg – or twenty; and if what he reveals about the Borgias is historically true, then an apology is owed to the Catholic Church (if not to the Borgias themselves) for years of defamation on the basis of no evidence at all.
What he reveals is that 15th Century Italy and 16th Century England would both have been horrible places to live for the likes of such as you and me. But the Borgias (Popes Calixtus and Alexander, and perhaps even their relative Ceasare) appear to have done what they could not only to survive, but to make the Italy of their time a more secure place in which to live, while the Tudors, in order to survive, made England a hell hole for anyone of sincere faith, Catholic or Protestant.
Both books firmly squash the ‘Whig’ histories of both dynasties, intended as they were (and at which they were quite successful) to bolster the Protestant myth of a corrupt church that needed to be purified by the strong hand of the Reformation. At one point in “The Tudors”, Meyer makes positive and admiring reference to Eamon Duffy’s work “Stripping of the Altars” which covers much the same period. While not in quite the same league of historical scholarship, one gets the impression that Meyer is fully on Duffy’s side of history. For Catholic apologists, it might be worth knowing this side of history, next time your detractor mentions the Borgias or Bloody Mary along with the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades as infamous black marks against the Catholic Church. A friend at work recently lamented that one of her friends had named their daughter “Lucrezia” – fear not, as it turns out she was a virtuous and dutiful (if not necessarily loving – but with the husbands they chose for her, how could she have been?) wife.
As for reviews, here is one on “The Borgias” with which I solidly agree, and here is one that I came across about “The Tudors” which demonstrates exactly why this particular (verging on) popular history has been long required. If you have an intelligent, even if (like me) amateur, interest in these periods of history, you will get much out of these two books.
Now, for his history of World War I – although I don’t think they have done an audio version of that yet.
Actually, out of interest, a friend just sent me a link to an interview in which the Pope recently said something pertinent to the question of revisionist history. Talking of assessing Pius XII, he said:
See here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4597267,00.html
“15th Century Italy and 16th Century England would both have been horrible places to live for the likes of such as you and me.”
What do you mean by this, Mr. Schütz?
Well, ordinary folk such as myself rather than exalted men of the Church such as yourself, your Eminence. Although I remember that you had a rather lucky escape, dying within a few hours of your royal Mistress. And your old Ma’am caught the raw deal from Henry VIII, and some of your siblings too? Never a good thing to be too closely related to royalty in 16th Century England.
Seriously, though. In terms of Italy in 15th Century, to be anyone, high or low, was to live a precarious state of life, where your future depended on which warlord was currently your local boss and whether he was a mad sadist, a power hungry, feuding despot, or (that very rare occurance) a benevolent tyrant. From what I gather, Italy was torn by constant warfare between the various cities and states. England in the 15th Century wasn’t much better as far as wars went, but at least the Church was a reasonably stable institution that provided for the needs of the very poor, and unemployment was rare. That all changed in the 16th Century with the abolition of the monsteries and the enclosure of large sections of land by the nobility. Hery VIII actually reintroduced slavery for the vagrant poor at the end of his reign. And worst of all, to be any kind of concientious believer in 16th Century England was to risk disfavour with the current Tudor tyrant.
I see. Thank you for that explanation.
Thanks for this review David , I have always felt that there was never a proper explanation from my staunch Protestant parents (my mother brought up Sydney Anglican) as to why Henry VIII set up the Anglican church,corruption ,- probably only those nearest to the throne.
As for Your Eminence,if you had become Pope-a Plantagenet in the Vatican- then along with your Spirituali comrades,there may have been no Reformation,as the church would have been Reformed under a potential Pole papacy.
Good to hear form both of you-it has been lonely skulking across the Catholic cyber space,heightened by the death of Richard Collin of LINEN ON THE HEDGEROW blog recently.May he rest in peace
By the way David my love of the Recusant catholics has been increased by Stephanie Mann’s most excellent web site SUPREMACY AND SURVIVAL and I am going to read Eamon Duffy’s STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS