Shakespeare Lied
1 August 2017
Everywhere where this book is concerned there are statements about how it won all these awards, and how wonderful it is as a history book, yet I found it on the clearance table at a bookshop I was exploring in inner city Sydney. Normally I wouldn't have purchased it, but it grabbed my attention, and a part of me actually thought it was about Richard III. Actually, maybe I bought it because it was about Henry VII and then promptly forgot, but I do know that I didn't buy it because it won all these awards namely because I generally don't buy books simply because they have won awards (and I certainly don't vote in the Goodreads choice awards, namely because I rarely, if ever, read contemporary literature).
So, as I mentioned, this book is about Henry VII, and England under his reign. Penn does point out that he tends to be a forgotten king, one that is generally skipped over in favour of Henry VIII, or Richard III. Penn suggests that this has something to do with his character, but seriously, how could you consider Henry's character to be quite bad when you put him up against Shakespeare's version of Richard III – seriously, if there was one king that should have been forgotten it should have been Richard, expect we have a play, and quite a famous saying attributed to him (which no doubt he never actually said).
This is the thing with Shakespeare, the first thing that I picked up when I was reading this book was how propaganderous Richard III actually is – when we read the play, or even watch it, we get the impression that Richard was a thug that had a very tenuous grip on power, and by the time Bodsworth Field came about it was an open and shut battle that Henry easily won. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, and the fact that Henry actually won had more to do with luck as opposed to any failing on Richard's part. As for being a tyrant, well, Henry was actually no better than Richard, though since he was the victor, Shakespeare obviously was influenced by the fact that the Tudor's won the battle.
The period of Henry VII was a period where England was in transition – going from a medieval past into a modern future. In one sense he brought stability to the kingdom, which was a kingdom that had been torn apart by wars ever since the English were kicked out of France. Yet under Richard England was also going through a period of stability, and Henry simply was able to marshal the troops, with French backing, to remove Richard and install himself as an usurper.
One interesting thing that I learnt was that one of the two boys that were allegedly murdered in the tower was said to have actually been living in Scotland, and every so often somebody would claim to be the prince and seek to take the throne off of Henry for himself. However, one of the first things that Henry did was make sure that people considered him to be a legitimate heir (his claim was actually quite tenuous), and having some guy appear and claim to be the lost prince had the potential to undermine his authority. In fact, for the first few years of his reign he found himself having to fight off other claimant's to the throne, or simply those who were still bitter than he had ousted Richard.
In a way what we have here is the beginnings of Renaissance England. At the start of Henry's reign there was still quite a large belief in the existence of King Arthur – in fact in this period and earlier the kings would claim their legitimacy by claiming to be descendant's of Arthur (well, not William the Conqueror, but you get the picture). Henry even went as far as naming his first born son Arthur, though his son ended up dying before he could take the crown, which meant that so far there hasn't actually been an actual 'King Arthur' on the throne (ignoring, of course, the wonderful story that appears in Monmoth, though it also seems that the search for Arthur is almost as futile as the search for the mythical holy grail). Yet, by the end of this period we discover that the whole King Arthur story has been put to bed, with the publication of the Anglica Historia (though not without some controversy).
Another thing we find out is that Henry wasn't actually a good king – he was an extravagant one, and in many cases was like that person that goes out to make a heap of money to basically live an outrageous and extravagant lifestyle, and spending all the money that goes with such a lifestyle. As such Henry was always looking for new and inventive ways of attempting to extort money of out his subjects. In fact, confiscating property, and titles, was one of his favourite ways of deal with enemies. However, his properties, his lavish weddings, and the fact that he lived extravagantly, demonstrated that he wasn't a king that was interested in the people, but just another tyrant wanting to live in luxury (though he was also an expert at hiding his wealth, but like a lot of people that we know about today).
I probably should finish off by saying a few things about the book. Basically it is one of those books that you would probably use if you happened to be writing a history essay on the period, or that you are really, really interested in the intricate historical details of a time period, or a person. There is actually quite a lot of interesting things in here, but it is really only something for the avid reader. Okay, I love my history, and I love reading history books, but sometime the details does cause me to bog down a bit, or to skim and scan. This book didn't really grab my attention as some have managed to do. The other thing is that it made me realise how difficult going through the sources would have been. Penn suggests that one of the reasons that we have the sources is that one of Henry's enemies escaped to France with them before they could be destroyed. When I studied history we were expected to go to primary sources, such as diaries and such – simply going to secondary sources, such as this book, really wasn't all that acceptable. Hey, even using Shakespeare as a source for Henry V wasn't acceptable, at least to my history lecturer.