|
|
|
|
|
|
King Richard, are historical and are depicted not as modern historians see and interpret them but as they appeared to chroniclers who lived and wrote at the end of the twelfth century. The prinicpal sources are Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History, Richard of Devizes's Deeds of King Richard the First, King of England, and Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Itinerary of Richard I and Others, to the Holy Land. The reader is urged to remember that scientific and historical accuracy were not matters of great moment in the twelfth century. Chroniclers were violently partisan and did not even attempt to be objective; indeed, they would have been horrified at the notion of writing ill of their heroes and good of their enemies. Thus, the fact that modern scholarship has determined that William Longchamp was, aside from his unfortunate appearance and manner, a good and efficient Chancellor, is not reflected in this book. By and large, Longchamp was hated by his contemporaries (at least in England); thus, he appears here as a villain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is also modern scholarship that has torn the clouds of glory away from Richard Coeur de Lion and has pointed out that he was a very bad king who neglected and impoverished his nation. Some modern writers have even pointed out that, rather than a larger-than-life hero, Richard was a petulant, infantile braggard. Neither view is really accurate, of course, but in medieval terms the former is closer to true than the latter. In spite of all Richard's faultsthe ungovernable Angevin temper, the vindictiveness that seldom forgave and never forgot, the desire to be praised and glorified, the prodigality that robbed others to make generous gestures, the disinclination to work at being a kingRichard was very nearly the beau ideal of the medieval man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one expected a king to be mild; at least, the only relatively mild-tempered kind after the Conquest in England had been Stephen whose reign (see The |
|
|
|
|
|