What do you think?
Rate this book
A Short History of England
Excerpt from A Short History of England
It will be very reasonably asked why I should consent, though upon a sort of challenge, to write even a popular essay in English history, who make no pretence to particular scholarship and am merely a member of the public. The answer is that I know just enough to know one thing: that a history from the standpoint of a member of the public has not been written. What we call the popular histories should rather be called the anti-popular histories. They are all, nearly without exception, written against the people; and in them the populace is either ignored or elaborately proved to have been wrong. It is true that Green called his book "A Short History of the English People"; but he seems to have thought it too short for the people to be properly mentioned. For instance, he calls one very large part of his story "Puritan England." But England never was Puritan. It would have been almost as unfair to call the rise of Henry of Navarre "Puritan France." And some of our extreme Whig historians would have been pretty nearly capable of calling the campaign of Wexford and Drogheda "Puritan Ireland."
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
It will be very reasonably asked why I should consent, though upon a sort of challenge, to write even a popular essay in English history, who make no pretence to particular scholarship and am merely a member of the public. The answer is that I know just enough to know one thing: that a history from the standpoint of a member of the public has not been written. What we call the popular histories should rather be called the anti-popular histories. They are all, nearly without exception, written against the people; and in them the populace is either ignored or elaborately proved to have been wrong. It is true that Green called his book "A Short History of the English People"; but he seems to have thought it too short for the people to be properly mentioned. For instance, he calls one very large part of his story "Puritan England." But England never was Puritan. It would have been almost as unfair to call the rise of Henry of Navarre "Puritan France." And some of our extreme Whig historians would have been pretty nearly capable of calling the campaign of Wexford and Drogheda "Puritan Ireland."
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
284 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1917
361 people are currently reading
1081 people want to read
About the author
G.K. Chesterton
4,649 books5,791 followersGilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
August 25, 2012
Having panned a recent "short history". I sought a good "short history." I stumbled across G. K. Chesterton's A Short History of England, which I tried because of previous experience with his writings.
I was disappointed. The book is incorrectly titled. It should have been "A Short Commentary on the History of England," though at almost 400 pages it's hardly short. Second, I found it shared the same faults as A Short History of the World, that of the author's opinions flowing freely throughout.
In fact, Chesterton's basic opinion on any subject seems to be contrary to whatever was the conventional wisdom. Undoubtedly, it would have be fun to know and converse with someone so informed and opinionated. His prose is like a scalpel, sometimes drawing blood before we feel the cut. "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." "A civilized state may fall from being a Christian nation to being a Chosen People." He declares but doesn't explain that "Puritan[ism] was first and last a veneer on Paganism." "Only the blessed bless." "Tradition is truer than fashion." "A return to the past by men ignorant of the past," parallels G. Santayana's famous quote published nine years before. "The only way to write a popular history . . . would be to write it backwards."
In fact A Short History of England can only be understood by readers with a good familiarity with English history because Chesterton often refers to people and events only obliquely. The other striking characteristic of his volume is Chesterton's bifocal myopia. All his judgments seem filtered through his rosy lenses of his Catholicism and the dark hue of his anti-Germanism. The latter is understandable, since this book was published early in World War One. The other seems strange until we remember that Chesterton is that most dangerous type of believer: a convert during his adulthood. (Chesterton formalized his Catholicism in 1922, but his vector is obvious in 1914.) He defends his bias as "correct[ing] a disproportion."
A fun and challenging read, but Chesterton's prose is hard going for readers a century later.
I was disappointed. The book is incorrectly titled. It should have been "A Short Commentary on the History of England," though at almost 400 pages it's hardly short. Second, I found it shared the same faults as A Short History of the World, that of the author's opinions flowing freely throughout.
In fact, Chesterton's basic opinion on any subject seems to be contrary to whatever was the conventional wisdom. Undoubtedly, it would have be fun to know and converse with someone so informed and opinionated. His prose is like a scalpel, sometimes drawing blood before we feel the cut. "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." "A civilized state may fall from being a Christian nation to being a Chosen People." He declares but doesn't explain that "Puritan[ism] was first and last a veneer on Paganism." "Only the blessed bless." "Tradition is truer than fashion." "A return to the past by men ignorant of the past," parallels G. Santayana's famous quote published nine years before. "The only way to write a popular history . . . would be to write it backwards."
In fact A Short History of England can only be understood by readers with a good familiarity with English history because Chesterton often refers to people and events only obliquely. The other striking characteristic of his volume is Chesterton's bifocal myopia. All his judgments seem filtered through his rosy lenses of his Catholicism and the dark hue of his anti-Germanism. The latter is understandable, since this book was published early in World War One. The other seems strange until we remember that Chesterton is that most dangerous type of believer: a convert during his adulthood. (Chesterton formalized his Catholicism in 1922, but his vector is obvious in 1914.) He defends his bias as "correct[ing] a disproportion."
A fun and challenging read, but Chesterton's prose is hard going for readers a century later.
December 3, 2019
Chesterton se propone corregir el punto de vista dominante entre los historiadores de Inglaterra. El maestro de la paradoja llega a una paradoja: propone la misma conclusión que intentaba corregir. La esencia inglesa según Chesterton es la aristocracia, creadora del Parlamento Inglés y del Imperio Británico, que es otra definición de la esencia inglesa. Esa aristocracia ha estado por encima de la monarquía, de los Whigs y los Tories, de las guerras, de los complots, de las crisis, de la Reforma, de los efímeros levantamientos de lo que Chesterton llama populacho, inclusive de la Revolución, que nunca ocurrió en Inglaterra. La esencia inglesa, once upon a time, sobrevivió al Imperio Romano, nada mal como obertura. La aristocracia inglesa es lo propiamente inglés. Gran paradoja: esa aristocracia es teutona. Lo anglo cobra sentido por lo sajón, que prima. Paradoja chesterborgeana. De ahí deriva Chesterton todas las interpretaciones históricas de los isleños que llama de risa ilógica. El núcleo católico del libro: esta aristocracia es una reformulación de instituciones medievales, una reunión de caballeros santos en busca del Grial. Una Edad Media idealizada, una comunidad religiosa radicalizada aparece entonces como esencia de lo inglés. Es asombroso sospechar que tenga razón. Y más asombroso, que la tenga. Como todo Chesterton, la prosa es brillante, irónica, erudita. Usa y abusa de la paradoja y la metáfora como provocación. El estilo es todo en este poeta místico devenido en narrador.
Read
July 22, 2009The least factual based history book I've ever read. Beautifully written and very poetic story of history and perspective.
August 22, 2020
This is called a "Short History," but it is more of a commentary on England's history and ruminations on the concept of Englishness rather than a pure chronology. Chesterton takes a rather romaticized view of the absolute monarchy of olden times and naturally gets increasingly more political as his history nears his own time period of World War I. It's an intriguing look at England written in an engaging style not lacking in humor.
A few interesting quotes so far:
"Magna Charta was not a step towards democracy, but it was a step away from despotism."
"The Henry V. of Shakespeare is not indeed the Henry V. of history; yet he is more historic. He is not only a saner and more genial but a more important person, For the tradition of the whole adventure was not that of Henry, but of the populace who turned Henry into Harry. There were a thousand Harries in the army at Agincourt, and not one. For the figure that Shakespeare framed out of the legends of the great victory is largely the figure that all men saw as the Englishman of the Middle Ages. He did not really talk in poetry, like Shakespeare's hero, but he would have liked to."
"The English historical tradition has at least a loose large-mindedness which always finally falls into the praise not only of great foreigners but great foes. Often along with much injustice it has an illogical generosity; and while it will dismiss a great people with mere ignorance, it treats a great personality with hearty hero-worship."
A few interesting quotes so far:
"Magna Charta was not a step towards democracy, but it was a step away from despotism."
"The Henry V. of Shakespeare is not indeed the Henry V. of history; yet he is more historic. He is not only a saner and more genial but a more important person, For the tradition of the whole adventure was not that of Henry, but of the populace who turned Henry into Harry. There were a thousand Harries in the army at Agincourt, and not one. For the figure that Shakespeare framed out of the legends of the great victory is largely the figure that all men saw as the Englishman of the Middle Ages. He did not really talk in poetry, like Shakespeare's hero, but he would have liked to."
"The English historical tradition has at least a loose large-mindedness which always finally falls into the praise not only of great foreigners but great foes. Often along with much injustice it has an illogical generosity; and while it will dismiss a great people with mere ignorance, it treats a great personality with hearty hero-worship."
September 13, 2016
I really wish I had time to do this book justice. There was definitely a lot I had to look up and a lot that I didn't take the time to and so didn't know the references. It is such a slender volume to cover such a length of time for such a famous country. (imagine just trying to read short histories of all countries! What profound group humanity is!)
So I will just tell you the general impression that stood out to me. First, let me say that reading books like Iron John by Robert Bly or even Wendell Berry's many novels, I have had the impression that it was industrialization that drastically changed the world, remaking a world of apprentices and craftsman into one of Capital and Labor. What this book does is set the whole trend back another 200-300 years.
He says what is incredible is the change that happens in England, virtually on its own, from serfs to peasantry ...
"At the beginning of the Dark Ages the great pagan cosmopolitan society now grown Christian was as much a slave state as old South Carolina. By the fourteenth century it was almost as much a state of peasant proprietors as modern France. No laws had been passed against slavery; no dogmas even had condemned it by definition; no war had been waged against it, no new race or ruling caste had repudiated it; but it was gone." (55)
Or as to the transition from master to Master - "the word "employer" marks a modern deficiency which makes the modern use of the word "master" quite inexact. A master meant something quite other and greater than a "boss." It meant a master of the work, where it now means only a master of the workmen." (58)
What broke all that to pieces was not monarchy, but Parliament. (Apparently this is obvious, but was new to me). Parliament was originally a tool for the King to get more money, usually for war. And the Parliament was all the nobles. And they usually just fought over taxes and such.
Anyway, I don't have time to write more, but Chesterton tells of the Peasants Revolt and how the King had really sympathy for the people and even spoke promises to them ... but Parliament turned them into false promises in what Chesterton calls "the counter-revolution of the rich."
And so we move toward our time when the crown is bought ...
Another section later he says that Parliament may have been anti-despotic, but it was not democratic. This seems to resonate still. (Chesterton wrote this in the 30s).
Hopefully, you have come across this thought before, maybe not. But the periods of history and their names fall into that neat pithy remark - Winners write history. Chesterton is one who does not see Medieval Times as Dark Ages, nor does he believe that the Enlightenment was all that (Roger Scruton, an contemporary English philosopher calls it Light Pollution).
So I will just tell you the general impression that stood out to me. First, let me say that reading books like Iron John by Robert Bly or even Wendell Berry's many novels, I have had the impression that it was industrialization that drastically changed the world, remaking a world of apprentices and craftsman into one of Capital and Labor. What this book does is set the whole trend back another 200-300 years.
He says what is incredible is the change that happens in England, virtually on its own, from serfs to peasantry ...
"At the beginning of the Dark Ages the great pagan cosmopolitan society now grown Christian was as much a slave state as old South Carolina. By the fourteenth century it was almost as much a state of peasant proprietors as modern France. No laws had been passed against slavery; no dogmas even had condemned it by definition; no war had been waged against it, no new race or ruling caste had repudiated it; but it was gone." (55)
Or as to the transition from master to Master - "the word "employer" marks a modern deficiency which makes the modern use of the word "master" quite inexact. A master meant something quite other and greater than a "boss." It meant a master of the work, where it now means only a master of the workmen." (58)
What broke all that to pieces was not monarchy, but Parliament. (Apparently this is obvious, but was new to me). Parliament was originally a tool for the King to get more money, usually for war. And the Parliament was all the nobles. And they usually just fought over taxes and such.
Anyway, I don't have time to write more, but Chesterton tells of the Peasants Revolt and how the King had really sympathy for the people and even spoke promises to them ... but Parliament turned them into false promises in what Chesterton calls "the counter-revolution of the rich."
And so we move toward our time when the crown is bought ...
Another section later he says that Parliament may have been anti-despotic, but it was not democratic. This seems to resonate still. (Chesterton wrote this in the 30s).
Hopefully, you have come across this thought before, maybe not. But the periods of history and their names fall into that neat pithy remark - Winners write history. Chesterton is one who does not see Medieval Times as Dark Ages, nor does he believe that the Enlightenment was all that (Roger Scruton, an contemporary English philosopher calls it Light Pollution).
December 24, 2025
I suppose some historians hate highly impressionistic "sketches" like this, but I happen to be among those who greatly enjoy them..."toilet lit" at its finest. The essays here are as much about Chesterton as England, though "Chesterton's England" as a construct real enough. The fascinating thing is that real serious historians like Eamon Duffy and E.P. Thompson (two very different people, as their on-paper politics go) would validate certain of his theses regarding the pre-Reformation church (Duffy) and the rise of the rich in the 19th century (Thompson), though neither could write as splendidly as Chesterton because Chesterton was writing, like columnist Jimmy Cannon after him, "to end writing." And this, I think, is as good a place to end (or at least punctuate) a long-enough career of studying Anglo-American history (or at least Anglo-American legal history, as I have) as it is a place to start it, perhaps better even because I've read enough to know I couldn't care less about the "rightness" of a treatment like this. Highly recommended if you're into this sort of thing.
June 7, 2012
I have some friends and acquaintances that really think a lot of G.K. Chesterton. So I thought that I would read a few of his books. This was my second book by him (after The Man Who Was Thursday). I am told that he was the C.S. Lewis of his generation and that he had written many profound things. So I took up this book with some interest in deepening my understanding of English History with G.K.'s guiding colossal genius. I was disappointed.
I'm not sure who his audience was, but he assumes that the reader has a thorough knowledge of English history already. He makes comparisons and analogies that require a detailed knowledge of the subject and, if you are like me with only a general knowledge of it, you will find it hard to follow. He may have been saying something profound about Cromwell or Pitt or King Charles II but it was lost on me because he compared them to someone else or some group I was unfamiliar with. I will have to read a "Long History of England" somewhere first and then re-read this book again.
Also, Chesterton is very unkind to Cromwell, Calvinists, and the Puritans. If you are of the Reformed Faith, like me, you might not like what he has to say about them. I think this book was written in 1917, and perhaps he was already becoming Roman Catholic by that time. He ended up a Roman Catholic somewhere near the end of his life and he seemed to be leaning towards Rome at this time in his writing career. He was tough on the Jews too when covering the year 1260.
I doubt that I will recommend this book to anyone.
I'm not sure who his audience was, but he assumes that the reader has a thorough knowledge of English history already. He makes comparisons and analogies that require a detailed knowledge of the subject and, if you are like me with only a general knowledge of it, you will find it hard to follow. He may have been saying something profound about Cromwell or Pitt or King Charles II but it was lost on me because he compared them to someone else or some group I was unfamiliar with. I will have to read a "Long History of England" somewhere first and then re-read this book again.
Also, Chesterton is very unkind to Cromwell, Calvinists, and the Puritans. If you are of the Reformed Faith, like me, you might not like what he has to say about them. I think this book was written in 1917, and perhaps he was already becoming Roman Catholic by that time. He ended up a Roman Catholic somewhere near the end of his life and he seemed to be leaning towards Rome at this time in his writing career. He was tough on the Jews too when covering the year 1260.
I doubt that I will recommend this book to anyone.
August 1, 2023
As other reviewers have observed, this would be better titled “G.K. Chesterton’s Short History of England.”
I appreciated a native of England, giving a broad brushstrokes perspective on the history of English society. Helpful for those who do not claim England as their heritage, and orienting to better understand the culture and motivations who have called her their home over the ages. A primer, not exhaustive in the least.
I appreciated a native of England, giving a broad brushstrokes perspective on the history of English society. Helpful for those who do not claim England as their heritage, and orienting to better understand the culture and motivations who have called her their home over the ages. A primer, not exhaustive in the least.
July 30, 2020
This little book wasn't at all what I was expecting. It didn't go through a list of kings, for example, but instead explored the broader, bigger happenings that shaped England, and gave me a lot to think about regarding government.
May 19, 2025
Cita favorita: "No es posible juzgar a un autócrata como personaje histórico por sus relaciones con otros personajes históricos. Sus verdaderos aplausos le llegan, no de los pocos actores que se agıtan en el iluminado escenario de la aristocracia, sino del numerosísimo público que por fuerza debe permanecer en la oscuridad mientras se desarrolla el drama".
Reseña: Chesterton fue un inglés que vivió entre los 1870 y 1934. Varias ediciones de este libro han llegado a nuestros días no por su valor como material histórico original sino por su papel como material que corrije otros libros de historia de Inglaterra, al menos los que había hasta antes de 1929. Y desde el primer momento puedes percibir que la intención del autor no es repasar brevemente la historia sino de corregir muchos de los hitos y hechos que se dan por sentado sobre la propia Inglaterra. Lastimosamente ( o quizá alegre suerte), el autor se quedó sin presenciar el papel de su país en la segunda guerra mundial, el eventual nuevo orden mundial de la guerra fría y la salida del mismo de las colonias posteriores, todos ellos: acontecimientos propios de Inglaterra con ecos en el presente. ¿Qué habría pensado Chesterton de tales actos? ¿Cómo los habría juzgado? ¿También los habría enmendado con un nuevo marco histórico?
Reseña: Chesterton fue un inglés que vivió entre los 1870 y 1934. Varias ediciones de este libro han llegado a nuestros días no por su valor como material histórico original sino por su papel como material que corrije otros libros de historia de Inglaterra, al menos los que había hasta antes de 1929. Y desde el primer momento puedes percibir que la intención del autor no es repasar brevemente la historia sino de corregir muchos de los hitos y hechos que se dan por sentado sobre la propia Inglaterra. Lastimosamente ( o quizá alegre suerte), el autor se quedó sin presenciar el papel de su país en la segunda guerra mundial, el eventual nuevo orden mundial de la guerra fría y la salida del mismo de las colonias posteriores, todos ellos: acontecimientos propios de Inglaterra con ecos en el presente. ¿Qué habría pensado Chesterton de tales actos? ¿Cómo los habría juzgado? ¿También los habría enmendado con un nuevo marco histórico?
August 11, 2022
La edición en mi poder (Calleja, 1920) cuenta con un breve resumen preliminar de la historia de Inglaterra y con suficientes notas al pie como para permitir al lector no familiarizado con dicha historia no perder el hilo de la narración. Y esto es importante ya que, básicamente, el libro es un comentario y no un relato del devenir inglés. La tesis principal del mismo es la predominancia de una oligarquía en el poder, que despojó a las clases medias y bajas de su capacidad de influir en el gobierno y se apoderó del Parlamento. Desde la desaparición de los gremios y los monasterios hasta la sofocación de las protestas populares y la apropiación de la tierra, la aristocracia se habría apropiado también de la riqueza. Chesterton toma partido por los débiles, y especialmente por los sufrimientos causados a los irlandeses por los ingleses.
July 31, 2022
El propio Chesterton advierte en el prólogo que él no es historiador ni pretende ser exhaustivo. Aún así, esta visión muy personal de la historia de Inglaterra está demasiado sesgada por su catolicismo militante (no creo que juzgar la civilización celta o las leyendas artúricas desde una perspectiva cristiana aporte demasiado) y esa noción ya superada de la Edad Media como una era de oscuridad y retroceso.
En cuanto a no ficción, me quedo con su faceta de teórico del relato de misterio.
En cuanto a no ficción, me quedo con su faceta de teórico del relato de misterio.
February 29, 2024
Un placer leer a Chesterton!!! Un rápido panorama sobre la barbarie y civilización , la riqueza y pobreza en un mundo cruel e inhumano.
July 16, 2019
I had finished a Father Brown mystery collection by G.K. Chesterton, and although the writing was great, I got irritated by his flaky perspectives on science and atheists.
I decided on this book because I know little history. I was first surprised that it was written by Chesterton and to my second surprise, he had no training in history, though he seemed to know quite a bit.
It was poetical and literate and had tons of fresh perspectives, such as about when conservatism was for democracy and rationalism, and how once ‘Rome’ in the sense of both the Empire and the Church were too. And how the church was anti-slavery, and how you have to understand the King Arthur myths to understand England. And how the Magna Carta restrained the king but was in no sense democratic. Lots more!
I really liked the first go!
It gradually becomes plain that it is an elaborate defence and promotion of the Catholic Church in England. That's still a fresh perspective to me, and it did shed some light and sequencing upon English history. He adores medieval democracy, especially monasteries and guilds.
He sure hates Thomas Cromwell, whom he calls a torturer and a looter of monasteries and guild halls.
Interesting tidbit: Apparently after some king ‘wronged’ the church, he surrendered himself to be beaten by priests, which they did, till he was naked and crying for mercy.
He alludes to a lot of historical events without explaining them. If I was sitting with my phone, that would be fine. But I took this book as an audiobook during exercise, so that didn't work out for me. He did much better on the earlier history and the legends. He used the terms whigs and tories constantly without explaining. [I checked during journalling, and whiggism is favouring Parliament over King, tolerance of protestant protesters, and opposition to papist on throne. They called their enemies Jacobites. Jacobites were trying to restore the House of Stuart to the throne. Jacobus is the latin form of James.
And what the hell is Agincourt? [Wikipedia says “England's unexpected victory against a numerically superior French army boosted English morale and prestige, crippled France, and started a new period in the war during which the English began enjoying great military successes.” “King Henry V of England led his troops into battle and participated in hand-to-hand fighting. King Charles VI of France did not command the French army himself, as he suffered from severe psychotic illnesses with moderate mental incapacitation.” “This battle is notable for the use of the English longbow in very large numbers, with the English and Welsh archers making up nearly 80 percent of Henry's army.” “Several French accounts emphasise that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English (and win the ransoms of the English men-at-arms) that they insisted on being in the first line; as one of the contemporary accounts put it: "All the lords wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights."” “The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud through which the French knights had to walk” “Henry ordered the slaughter of what were perhaps several thousand French prisoners, sparing only the highest ranked “ [he had threaten hangings of those who disobeyed, but he feared that the prisoners outnumbered the exhausted English and nearly needed to rise up.] “ It established the legitimacy of the Lancastrian monarchy” “The most famous cultural depiction of the battle today is William Shakespeare's Henry V, written in 1599. The play focuses on the pressures of kingship, the tensions between how a king should appear – chivalric, honest, and just – and how a king must sometimes act – Machiavellian and ruthless” “V sign, for more on the "two-finger salute" which legends claim derives from the gestures of longbowmen fighting in the English army at the battle of Agincourt.”
He wraps up with how the German protestant influence grew until they were the villain in the war. The war proved that the youth of England have the courage of their fathers, but he fears that they will keep failing to restore the medieval virtues and Catholic virtues, so they might as well have died. So, a rather sour ending.
I decided on this book because I know little history. I was first surprised that it was written by Chesterton and to my second surprise, he had no training in history, though he seemed to know quite a bit.
It was poetical and literate and had tons of fresh perspectives, such as about when conservatism was for democracy and rationalism, and how once ‘Rome’ in the sense of both the Empire and the Church were too. And how the church was anti-slavery, and how you have to understand the King Arthur myths to understand England. And how the Magna Carta restrained the king but was in no sense democratic. Lots more!
I really liked the first go!
It gradually becomes plain that it is an elaborate defence and promotion of the Catholic Church in England. That's still a fresh perspective to me, and it did shed some light and sequencing upon English history. He adores medieval democracy, especially monasteries and guilds.
He sure hates Thomas Cromwell, whom he calls a torturer and a looter of monasteries and guild halls.
Interesting tidbit: Apparently after some king ‘wronged’ the church, he surrendered himself to be beaten by priests, which they did, till he was naked and crying for mercy.
He alludes to a lot of historical events without explaining them. If I was sitting with my phone, that would be fine. But I took this book as an audiobook during exercise, so that didn't work out for me. He did much better on the earlier history and the legends. He used the terms whigs and tories constantly without explaining. [I checked during journalling, and whiggism is favouring Parliament over King, tolerance of protestant protesters, and opposition to papist on throne. They called their enemies Jacobites. Jacobites were trying to restore the House of Stuart to the throne. Jacobus is the latin form of James.
And what the hell is Agincourt? [Wikipedia says “England's unexpected victory against a numerically superior French army boosted English morale and prestige, crippled France, and started a new period in the war during which the English began enjoying great military successes.” “King Henry V of England led his troops into battle and participated in hand-to-hand fighting. King Charles VI of France did not command the French army himself, as he suffered from severe psychotic illnesses with moderate mental incapacitation.” “This battle is notable for the use of the English longbow in very large numbers, with the English and Welsh archers making up nearly 80 percent of Henry's army.” “Several French accounts emphasise that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English (and win the ransoms of the English men-at-arms) that they insisted on being in the first line; as one of the contemporary accounts put it: "All the lords wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights."” “The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud through which the French knights had to walk” “Henry ordered the slaughter of what were perhaps several thousand French prisoners, sparing only the highest ranked “ [he had threaten hangings of those who disobeyed, but he feared that the prisoners outnumbered the exhausted English and nearly needed to rise up.] “ It established the legitimacy of the Lancastrian monarchy” “The most famous cultural depiction of the battle today is William Shakespeare's Henry V, written in 1599. The play focuses on the pressures of kingship, the tensions between how a king should appear – chivalric, honest, and just – and how a king must sometimes act – Machiavellian and ruthless” “V sign, for more on the "two-finger salute" which legends claim derives from the gestures of longbowmen fighting in the English army at the battle of Agincourt.”
He wraps up with how the German protestant influence grew until they were the villain in the war. The war proved that the youth of England have the courage of their fathers, but he fears that they will keep failing to restore the medieval virtues and Catholic virtues, so they might as well have died. So, a rather sour ending.
October 31, 2017
A short re-telling of England's history that you aren't going to find in any textbook. Chesterton's unique perspective as a Catholic and as a collectivist are all reflected in his interpretation of everything from the dissolution of the monasteries to the poor laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. If there were any modern comparison, you could perhaps imagine Ben Shapiro writing a history of America.
The basic premise of the book is that England has been robbed by the rich in the form of Protestantism and Parliament. All that is good in England was was lost as as the medieval ages passed to the Rennaisance. Monasteries kept the poor from being abused or trodden on, guilds preserved a strong work ethic and local character to labor, and Parliament, originally a tool of the common man, ultimately turned against the common man. The three centers of power in England are the peasants, Parliament, and the King. Whenever the peasants stood up for themselves, the king ultimately betrayed them and turned them over to the conspiring aristoctracy, always seeking wealth and status.
He also paints the Protestant spirit as an attempt to remove the earthy. Religion should be purely an act of the mind, stripping it of all physical elements such as sacraments and symbols. Pushing this too far resulted in modern atheism. He also tied the Protestant movement to the alliance with the Germans, the rise of the teutonic race, and blamed the English for helping create the nation that ultimately led to Hitler.
I am somewhat familiar with English history, but this book was obviously written for someone who is already familiar with the storyline. I got lost when characters were introduced with whom I don't remember clearly-- Wellingtons, Disrealis, Gladstones, Pitts, Burkes, Nelsons-- all are familiar, but if he didn't give an in detail description of what they did, a lot of his analysis passed over my head. More motivation to become familiar with English history.
Some quotes:
Rome as a symbol of fallen man: Rome was regarded as Man, mighty, though fallen, because it was the utmost that Man had done. It was divinely necessary that the Roman Empire should succeed — if only that it might fail. Hence the school of Dante implied the paradox that the Roman soldiers killed Christ, not only by right, but even by divine right.
Catholicism is catholic, allowing for many variations in faith: In the tremendous testament of our religion there are present certain ideals that seem wilder than impieties, which have in later times produced wild sects professing an almost inhuman perfection on certain points; as in the Quakers who renounce the right of self-defence, or the Communists who refuse any personal possessions. Rightly or wrongly, the Christian Church had from the first dealt with these visions as being special spiritual adventures which were to the adventurous. She reconciled them with natural human life by calling them specially good, without admitting that the neglect of them was necessarily bad. She took the view that it takes all sorts to make a world, even the religious world; and used the man who chose to go without arms, family, or property as a sort of exception that proved the rule.
The risks of humanism: I do not, in my private capacity, believe that a baby gets his best physical food by sucking his thumb; nor that a man gets his best moral food by sucking his soul, and denying its dependence on God or other good things. I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought; and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.
The modern man's common sense as bad manners: The mediæval Englishman was even proud of being polite; which is at least no worse than being proud of money and bad manners, which is what many Englishmen in our later centuries have meant by their common sense.
Medieval government was true self-government: Modern local government always comes from above; it is at best granted; it is more often merely imposed. The modern English oligarchy, the modern German Empire, are necessarily more efficient in making municipalities upon a plan, or rather a pattern. The mediævals not only had self-government, but their self-government was self-made. They did indeed, as the central powers of the national monarchies grew stronger, seek and procure the stamp of state approval; but it was approval of a popular fact already in existence. Men banded together in guilds and parishes long before Local Government Acts were dreamed of. Like charity, which was worked in the same way, their Home Rule began at home.
Divine right of kings limits the ambition of the rich: The advantage of “divine right,” or irremovable legitimacy, is this; that there is a limit to the ambitions of the rich. “Roi ne puis”; the royal power, whether it was or was not the power of heaven, was in one respect like the power of heaven. It was not for sale.
What happened when the crown went up for sale: The point is that by the removal of Richard, a step above the parliament became possible for the first time. The transition was tremendous; the crown became an object of ambition. That which one could snatch another could snatch from him; that which the House of Lancaster held merely by force the House of York could take from it by force. The spell of an undethronable thing seated out of reach was broken, and for three unhappy generations adventurers strove and stumbled on a stairway slippery with blood, above which was something new in the mediæval imagination; an empty throne.
The short-sightedness of modern man: He was even in many ways very modern, which some rather erroneously suppose to be the same as being human;
Patron saints represent variation without antagonism: The conception of a patron saint had carried from the Middle Ages one very unique and as yet unreplaced idea. It was the idea of variation without antagonism. The Seven Champions of Christendom were multiplied by seventy times seven in the patrons of towns, trades and social types; but the very idea that they were all saints excluded the possibility of ultimate rivalry in the fact that they were all patrons. The Guild of the Shoemakers and the Guild of the Skinners, carrying the badges of St. Crispin and St. Bartholomew, might fight each other in the streets; but they did not believe that St. Crispin and St. Bartholomew were fighting each other in the skies. Similarly the English would cry in battle on St. George and the French on St. Denis; but they did not seriously believe that St. George hated St. Denis or even those who cried upon St. Denis. Joan of Arc, who was on the point of patriotism what many modern people would call very fanatical, was yet upon this point what most modern people would call very enlightened. Now, with the religious schism, it cannot be denied, a deeper and more inhuman division appeared. It was no longer a scrap between the followers of saints who were themselves at peace, but a war between the followers of gods who were themselves at war. That the great Spanish ships were named after St. Francis or St. Philip was already beginning to mean little to the new England; soon it was to mean something almost cosmically conflicting, as if they were named after Baal or Thor.
The awful aristocracies of Calvinism: The next thing to note is that their conception of church-government was in a true sense self-government; and yet, for a particular reason, turned out to be a rather selfish self-government. It was equal and yet it was exclusive. Internally the synod or conventicle tended to be a small republic, but unfortunately to be a very small republic. In relation to the street outside the conventicle was not a republic but an aristocracy. It was the most awful of all aristocracies, that of the elect; for it was not a right of birth but a right before birth, and alone of all nobilities it was not laid level in the dust.
A king prevents the rich from oppressing the poor: This conviction, as brilliantly expounded by Bolingbroke, had many aspects; perhaps the most practical was the point that one of the virtues of a despot is distance. It is “the little tyrant of the fields” that poisons human life. The thesis involved the truism that a good king is not only a good thing, but perhaps the best thing. But it also involved the paradox that even a bad king is a good king, for his oppression weakens the nobility and relieves the pressure on the populace. If he is a tyrant he chiefly tortures the torturers; and though Nero’s murder of his own mother was hardly perhaps a gain to his soul, it was no great loss to his empire.
The basic premise of the book is that England has been robbed by the rich in the form of Protestantism and Parliament. All that is good in England was was lost as as the medieval ages passed to the Rennaisance. Monasteries kept the poor from being abused or trodden on, guilds preserved a strong work ethic and local character to labor, and Parliament, originally a tool of the common man, ultimately turned against the common man. The three centers of power in England are the peasants, Parliament, and the King. Whenever the peasants stood up for themselves, the king ultimately betrayed them and turned them over to the conspiring aristoctracy, always seeking wealth and status.
He also paints the Protestant spirit as an attempt to remove the earthy. Religion should be purely an act of the mind, stripping it of all physical elements such as sacraments and symbols. Pushing this too far resulted in modern atheism. He also tied the Protestant movement to the alliance with the Germans, the rise of the teutonic race, and blamed the English for helping create the nation that ultimately led to Hitler.
I am somewhat familiar with English history, but this book was obviously written for someone who is already familiar with the storyline. I got lost when characters were introduced with whom I don't remember clearly-- Wellingtons, Disrealis, Gladstones, Pitts, Burkes, Nelsons-- all are familiar, but if he didn't give an in detail description of what they did, a lot of his analysis passed over my head. More motivation to become familiar with English history.
Some quotes:
Rome as a symbol of fallen man: Rome was regarded as Man, mighty, though fallen, because it was the utmost that Man had done. It was divinely necessary that the Roman Empire should succeed — if only that it might fail. Hence the school of Dante implied the paradox that the Roman soldiers killed Christ, not only by right, but even by divine right.
Catholicism is catholic, allowing for many variations in faith: In the tremendous testament of our religion there are present certain ideals that seem wilder than impieties, which have in later times produced wild sects professing an almost inhuman perfection on certain points; as in the Quakers who renounce the right of self-defence, or the Communists who refuse any personal possessions. Rightly or wrongly, the Christian Church had from the first dealt with these visions as being special spiritual adventures which were to the adventurous. She reconciled them with natural human life by calling them specially good, without admitting that the neglect of them was necessarily bad. She took the view that it takes all sorts to make a world, even the religious world; and used the man who chose to go without arms, family, or property as a sort of exception that proved the rule.
The risks of humanism: I do not, in my private capacity, believe that a baby gets his best physical food by sucking his thumb; nor that a man gets his best moral food by sucking his soul, and denying its dependence on God or other good things. I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought; and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.
The modern man's common sense as bad manners: The mediæval Englishman was even proud of being polite; which is at least no worse than being proud of money and bad manners, which is what many Englishmen in our later centuries have meant by their common sense.
Medieval government was true self-government: Modern local government always comes from above; it is at best granted; it is more often merely imposed. The modern English oligarchy, the modern German Empire, are necessarily more efficient in making municipalities upon a plan, or rather a pattern. The mediævals not only had self-government, but their self-government was self-made. They did indeed, as the central powers of the national monarchies grew stronger, seek and procure the stamp of state approval; but it was approval of a popular fact already in existence. Men banded together in guilds and parishes long before Local Government Acts were dreamed of. Like charity, which was worked in the same way, their Home Rule began at home.
Divine right of kings limits the ambition of the rich: The advantage of “divine right,” or irremovable legitimacy, is this; that there is a limit to the ambitions of the rich. “Roi ne puis”; the royal power, whether it was or was not the power of heaven, was in one respect like the power of heaven. It was not for sale.
What happened when the crown went up for sale: The point is that by the removal of Richard, a step above the parliament became possible for the first time. The transition was tremendous; the crown became an object of ambition. That which one could snatch another could snatch from him; that which the House of Lancaster held merely by force the House of York could take from it by force. The spell of an undethronable thing seated out of reach was broken, and for three unhappy generations adventurers strove and stumbled on a stairway slippery with blood, above which was something new in the mediæval imagination; an empty throne.
The short-sightedness of modern man: He was even in many ways very modern, which some rather erroneously suppose to be the same as being human;
Patron saints represent variation without antagonism: The conception of a patron saint had carried from the Middle Ages one very unique and as yet unreplaced idea. It was the idea of variation without antagonism. The Seven Champions of Christendom were multiplied by seventy times seven in the patrons of towns, trades and social types; but the very idea that they were all saints excluded the possibility of ultimate rivalry in the fact that they were all patrons. The Guild of the Shoemakers and the Guild of the Skinners, carrying the badges of St. Crispin and St. Bartholomew, might fight each other in the streets; but they did not believe that St. Crispin and St. Bartholomew were fighting each other in the skies. Similarly the English would cry in battle on St. George and the French on St. Denis; but they did not seriously believe that St. George hated St. Denis or even those who cried upon St. Denis. Joan of Arc, who was on the point of patriotism what many modern people would call very fanatical, was yet upon this point what most modern people would call very enlightened. Now, with the religious schism, it cannot be denied, a deeper and more inhuman division appeared. It was no longer a scrap between the followers of saints who were themselves at peace, but a war between the followers of gods who were themselves at war. That the great Spanish ships were named after St. Francis or St. Philip was already beginning to mean little to the new England; soon it was to mean something almost cosmically conflicting, as if they were named after Baal or Thor.
The awful aristocracies of Calvinism: The next thing to note is that their conception of church-government was in a true sense self-government; and yet, for a particular reason, turned out to be a rather selfish self-government. It was equal and yet it was exclusive. Internally the synod or conventicle tended to be a small republic, but unfortunately to be a very small republic. In relation to the street outside the conventicle was not a republic but an aristocracy. It was the most awful of all aristocracies, that of the elect; for it was not a right of birth but a right before birth, and alone of all nobilities it was not laid level in the dust.
A king prevents the rich from oppressing the poor: This conviction, as brilliantly expounded by Bolingbroke, had many aspects; perhaps the most practical was the point that one of the virtues of a despot is distance. It is “the little tyrant of the fields” that poisons human life. The thesis involved the truism that a good king is not only a good thing, but perhaps the best thing. But it also involved the paradox that even a bad king is a good king, for his oppression weakens the nobility and relieves the pressure on the populace. If he is a tyrant he chiefly tortures the torturers; and though Nero’s murder of his own mother was hardly perhaps a gain to his soul, it was no great loss to his empire.
January 30, 2011
Chesterton’s brief history is a secondary source, at best, or more likely even tertiary. Either way, it is farthest away from being a primary source narrative as you can get. It relies less on historical dates than it does upon historical theory. Which is simultaneously its greatest strength and weakness as a piece of historical narrative.
Where his ideas do go well are his theories as to the grand sweeping changes that passed over England from Roman times up until the previous turn of the century in which he was writing. One particularly poetic-minded idea of his centers on the change from a Roman-influenced Britain to a more superstitious Middle Age one: “The soldier of civilization is no longer fighting with Goths but with goblins; the land becomes a labyrinth of faerie towns unknown to history; and scholars can suggest but cannot explain how a Roman ruler or a Welsh chieftain towers up in the twilight as the awful and unbegotten Arthur. The scientific age comes first and the mythological age after it.” Stunningly evocative? Sure. But just possibly hyperbole if you were to ask more serious-minded historians.
But where Chesterton goes astray into the realm of figurative exuberance, he does manage to nail down some startling truisms. In regards to the Norman conqueror William, he posits that “…it is very much nearer the truth to call William the first of the English than to call Harold the last of them.” Despite being a native-speaker of French, it is worth noting that the institutional changes that Williams initiated have left an indelible mark on England than most would now argue are quintessentially English: the census, legal procedures, the slow diminishment of divine right as an older, medieval idea, and the like.
Of course, Chesterton revisits paths trodden elsewhere. Take for example his focus on the ramifications of the Black Plague; it “…burst like a blast on the land, thinning the population and throwing the work of the world into ruin. There was a shortage of labor; a difficulty of getting luxuries; and the great lords did what one would expect them to do. They became lawyers, and upholders of the letter of the law. They appealed to a rule already nearly obsolete, to drive the serf back to the more direct servitude of the Dark Ages. They announced their decision to the people, and the people rose in arms.”
And later, when he reaches the reign of the Tudors (concurrent with the Renaissance), Chesterton paints a picture that is certainly true in its essential idea, even if he falls far short on concrete details. “As the new Tudor house passes through its generation a new more rationalist civilization is being made; scholars are criticizing authentic texts; skeptics are discrediting not only popish saints but pagan philosophers; specialists are analyzing and rationalizing traditions.” And herein lay his shortcoming: As A Short History, Chesterton’s ideas are short on details. But as a brief interpretation of the scope of English history, it is worth reading as a companion to more scholarly works.
Where his ideas do go well are his theories as to the grand sweeping changes that passed over England from Roman times up until the previous turn of the century in which he was writing. One particularly poetic-minded idea of his centers on the change from a Roman-influenced Britain to a more superstitious Middle Age one: “The soldier of civilization is no longer fighting with Goths but with goblins; the land becomes a labyrinth of faerie towns unknown to history; and scholars can suggest but cannot explain how a Roman ruler or a Welsh chieftain towers up in the twilight as the awful and unbegotten Arthur. The scientific age comes first and the mythological age after it.” Stunningly evocative? Sure. But just possibly hyperbole if you were to ask more serious-minded historians.
But where Chesterton goes astray into the realm of figurative exuberance, he does manage to nail down some startling truisms. In regards to the Norman conqueror William, he posits that “…it is very much nearer the truth to call William the first of the English than to call Harold the last of them.” Despite being a native-speaker of French, it is worth noting that the institutional changes that Williams initiated have left an indelible mark on England than most would now argue are quintessentially English: the census, legal procedures, the slow diminishment of divine right as an older, medieval idea, and the like.
Of course, Chesterton revisits paths trodden elsewhere. Take for example his focus on the ramifications of the Black Plague; it “…burst like a blast on the land, thinning the population and throwing the work of the world into ruin. There was a shortage of labor; a difficulty of getting luxuries; and the great lords did what one would expect them to do. They became lawyers, and upholders of the letter of the law. They appealed to a rule already nearly obsolete, to drive the serf back to the more direct servitude of the Dark Ages. They announced their decision to the people, and the people rose in arms.”
And later, when he reaches the reign of the Tudors (concurrent with the Renaissance), Chesterton paints a picture that is certainly true in its essential idea, even if he falls far short on concrete details. “As the new Tudor house passes through its generation a new more rationalist civilization is being made; scholars are criticizing authentic texts; skeptics are discrediting not only popish saints but pagan philosophers; specialists are analyzing and rationalizing traditions.” And herein lay his shortcoming: As A Short History, Chesterton’s ideas are short on details. But as a brief interpretation of the scope of English history, it is worth reading as a companion to more scholarly works.
April 30, 2019
Chesterton, in his typical style, did not write this book to be readable. In fact, it was more like a test of how well one knows English history than it was any sort of introduction. I had read reviews before I picked it up, so I knew what I was getting, but it still bears repeating.
Chesteron makes references to a lot of names and folklore of English history which are at times obscure. I had to open Wikipedia or do an internet search nearly every other page. In that sense it was fun, while also being a very slow and dense read.
The hypothesis of the book is simple, and the reason it is still worth a read (even if it is not really an /enjoyable/ read): ancient and Medieval England were far more popular and democratic than modern England. The reforms of Henry VIII allowed the aristocracy to steal power from the people, and that power has never been returned. Certainly a thought-provoking idea, and one that is typically Chestertonian. Anyone interested in Distributism will want to reference this text.
Three stars because it is an unnecessarily dense and difficult read.
Chesteron makes references to a lot of names and folklore of English history which are at times obscure. I had to open Wikipedia or do an internet search nearly every other page. In that sense it was fun, while also being a very slow and dense read.
The hypothesis of the book is simple, and the reason it is still worth a read (even if it is not really an /enjoyable/ read): ancient and Medieval England were far more popular and democratic than modern England. The reforms of Henry VIII allowed the aristocracy to steal power from the people, and that power has never been returned. Certainly a thought-provoking idea, and one that is typically Chestertonian. Anyone interested in Distributism will want to reference this text.
Three stars because it is an unnecessarily dense and difficult read.
February 4, 2014
As much as I love the works of G K Chesterton, I am forced to admit that A Short History Of England is not one of his best works. Chesterton just does not do well on more lengthy, sustained polemics. It is only when he can break his work down into individual essays, such as in Orthodoxy and Heretics that he shines.
Perhaps this work is best titled Some Thoughts on British Social History and Religion. He skips from Richard II to the 18th century Whigs, then zig-zags back to the Middle Ages until one's head begins to spin. I would have enjoyed this book much more if it were presented as a book of loosely connected essays.
Perhaps this work is best titled Some Thoughts on British Social History and Religion. He skips from Richard II to the 18th century Whigs, then zig-zags back to the Middle Ages until one's head begins to spin. I would have enjoyed this book much more if it were presented as a book of loosely connected essays.
September 13, 2011
Chesterton assumes you have an intimate knowledge of English history from the Roman world to WWI and proceeds to write in rather sweeping generalizations about the spirit of each age and transitions between. Even though I didn't catch every historical reference, I still enjoyed reading this simply because of Chesterton's beautiful prose, startling insights, and ability to turn a memorable phrase.
Read
August 17, 2025This is not a short history of England.
These are some (very controversial!) thoughts of Chesterton about this history.
I respect Chesterton as a writer and philosopher, but I do not accept most of his political views.
These are some (very controversial!) thoughts of Chesterton about this history.
I respect Chesterton as a writer and philosopher, but I do not accept most of his political views.
February 23, 2016
Read it for Chesterton's prose, which makes any subject interesting, or for his forays into medieval historiography. You won't learn much in the way of history from the book.
September 21, 2019
Este es un libro de historia un tanto atípico. Que nadie espere encontrar aquí una sucesión de acontecimientos, fechas y nombres contados con más o menos pericia narrativa. No, esto es Chesterton interpretando, con su siempre personalísima forma, determinados momentos de la historia inglesa que a él le parecen más interesantes o cruciales para el devenir del país.
Hay, sí, una sucesión cronológica que arranca con la ocupación romana de la isla, y pasa por los principales hechos que todos conocemos: la oscura Edad Media, Guillermo El Conquistador, las cruzadas, los Lancaster, los Plantagenet, Enrique VIII y los Tudor, Isabel I y la Armada Invencible, Cromwell y Carlos I, la era Victoriana. Pero Chesterton pasa muchas veces un poco de puntillas por todos esos grandes nombres y se centra en otras cuestiones que a él le interesan más como el papel de los gremios en la edad media, la usurpación continua del Parlamento por la oligarquía aristócrata o las luchas de religión que, para un fervoroso cristiano como él, representan un punto especialmente sensible. Sorprende, eso sí, su absoluto mutismo sobre el Imperio Británico. Menciona únicamente el conflicto con las colonias americanas, pero nada en absoluto sobre la India, las colonias africanas o el total dominio del comercio marítimo del que disfrutó el Reino Unido durante la era victoriana.
El gusto por la paradoja, el retruécano, la ironía, en definitiva, la prosa siempre punzante de su autor, hace la lectura siempre muy amena, aunque muchas veces te encuentres desorientado por la falta de contexto de muchas de las situaciones que está analizando y que él, con su vastísima y enciclopédica cultura, da por supuestas. En ese sentido, el libro es un poco exigente con el lector, por lo menos con el de hoy en día, no sé si cuando se publicó en 1917 (en plena Guerra Mundial) muchas de las cuestiones expuestas resultaban más cercanas para los lectores de la época.
Me quedo, claro, con el Chesterton del Padre Brown y con el resto de sus relatos policíacos, pero interesante en cualquier caso, esa breve historia de Inglaterra.
Hay, sí, una sucesión cronológica que arranca con la ocupación romana de la isla, y pasa por los principales hechos que todos conocemos: la oscura Edad Media, Guillermo El Conquistador, las cruzadas, los Lancaster, los Plantagenet, Enrique VIII y los Tudor, Isabel I y la Armada Invencible, Cromwell y Carlos I, la era Victoriana. Pero Chesterton pasa muchas veces un poco de puntillas por todos esos grandes nombres y se centra en otras cuestiones que a él le interesan más como el papel de los gremios en la edad media, la usurpación continua del Parlamento por la oligarquía aristócrata o las luchas de religión que, para un fervoroso cristiano como él, representan un punto especialmente sensible. Sorprende, eso sí, su absoluto mutismo sobre el Imperio Británico. Menciona únicamente el conflicto con las colonias americanas, pero nada en absoluto sobre la India, las colonias africanas o el total dominio del comercio marítimo del que disfrutó el Reino Unido durante la era victoriana.
El gusto por la paradoja, el retruécano, la ironía, en definitiva, la prosa siempre punzante de su autor, hace la lectura siempre muy amena, aunque muchas veces te encuentres desorientado por la falta de contexto de muchas de las situaciones que está analizando y que él, con su vastísima y enciclopédica cultura, da por supuestas. En ese sentido, el libro es un poco exigente con el lector, por lo menos con el de hoy en día, no sé si cuando se publicó en 1917 (en plena Guerra Mundial) muchas de las cuestiones expuestas resultaban más cercanas para los lectores de la época.
Me quedo, claro, con el Chesterton del Padre Brown y con el resto de sus relatos policíacos, pero interesante en cualquier caso, esa breve historia de Inglaterra.
April 28, 2020
What I can say unequivocally about this book is that it is short, includes some history, and is about England. What I can equivocally say about G.K. Chesterton's 'A Short History of England' is that it is, in my reckoning, not a very good book. I say equivocally because if a reader is looking for a good, short history of England do not look for it here. However, if one is looking for a glimpse into how the famous English writer Chesterton seems to be handling England during WWI (the book was published in 1917) then look no further; the same for if one just has an itch to consume something for the sake of it being something penned by Chesterton. This book, while ostensibly a basic history, features not a single historic date, veers wildly from 'fair and balanced' to polemical, and rarely gives one a real sense of how one event or era flows into another. The best feeling one could get of England's history, walking away from this book after reading it cover-to-cover, is this: England has Roman roots, the medieval English were probably better off as peasants than wage-workers, the dissolution of the monasteries was bad, the aristocracy and parliament are selfish and destroyed the commons, Ireland is confusing, and the Germans (read: the Prussians) are barbarians. Chesterton's style and wit do make an appearance a handful of times, but for something Chesterton himself described as a layperson's history of England it doesn't do the trick - in order to make any real sense of the periods he covers you'd already need to know a fair bit about English history in order to fill in the gaps for oneself. All in all, I am glad I read it. I can also say that, despite not liking this book, I quite liked his biography of St. Francis (The Life of St. Francis of Assisi) and fully intend to read more Chesterton in the future.
June 4, 2019
You need to know English history before reading this history
Given the ending, this must have been from 1916 or 1917, in the middle of The Great War, not yet ended.
But that is an issue throughout the book for the modern reader: lack of context. Often, no dates are given and sometimes you have to work hard to figure out which people he's even referring to. It's as if you walked into a conversation full of "he", "she", and "they" without any knowledge of the participants. This is a book that definitely needs annotation to follow, even if you are familiar with the history.
The arc of GKC's argument, though, is about the fall of kings, the rise of aristocracy, and then the failure of aristocracy that led to World War I. This book is obviously a rushed production, as GKC is trying to praise the common British man and to criticize the elite that favored Germany over France. Pity that a mere twenty years later, Churchill would be making similar arguments.
That said - the aristo v. the hoi polloi is a long-enduring struggle in the West, and not in the way Marx thought (esp. as many of today's elites are Marxist and the hoi polloi are not), so looking back at the downfall of kings and rise of elites starting with Richard II gives a longer perspective and a lot to think about.
Given the ending, this must have been from 1916 or 1917, in the middle of The Great War, not yet ended.
But that is an issue throughout the book for the modern reader: lack of context. Often, no dates are given and sometimes you have to work hard to figure out which people he's even referring to. It's as if you walked into a conversation full of "he", "she", and "they" without any knowledge of the participants. This is a book that definitely needs annotation to follow, even if you are familiar with the history.
The arc of GKC's argument, though, is about the fall of kings, the rise of aristocracy, and then the failure of aristocracy that led to World War I. This book is obviously a rushed production, as GKC is trying to praise the common British man and to criticize the elite that favored Germany over France. Pity that a mere twenty years later, Churchill would be making similar arguments.
That said - the aristo v. the hoi polloi is a long-enduring struggle in the West, and not in the way Marx thought (esp. as many of today's elites are Marxist and the hoi polloi are not), so looking back at the downfall of kings and rise of elites starting with Richard II gives a longer perspective and a lot to think about.
September 12, 2025
The edition I got was published by Amazon; so I expected a book that was flimsily bound and a text that was badly justified and littered with errors, and I was not disappointed.
But as for the content, it is stunning. It's like that moment in a film when all is dark, but suddenly there's a flash of lightning and you see everything that's going on. I have been a student of British history since I was in the Juniors, but I honestly feel that I understand it now as I have never understood it before - I see its 'golden thread', its inner, spiritual logic.
Chesterton is by no means the complacent, Blimpish Tory you might expect from his appearance and his well-known Catholicism and preference for the past over the present. He sides with the poor and with those other underdogs of the time, the Irish nationalists. Only he thinks we have all been cheated of our birthright by some grand sleight of hand by the rich: this is 'the story of how our populace has gained great things, but today has lost everything'.
But as for the content, it is stunning. It's like that moment in a film when all is dark, but suddenly there's a flash of lightning and you see everything that's going on. I have been a student of British history since I was in the Juniors, but I honestly feel that I understand it now as I have never understood it before - I see its 'golden thread', its inner, spiritual logic.
Chesterton is by no means the complacent, Blimpish Tory you might expect from his appearance and his well-known Catholicism and preference for the past over the present. He sides with the poor and with those other underdogs of the time, the Irish nationalists. Only he thinks we have all been cheated of our birthright by some grand sleight of hand by the rich: this is 'the story of how our populace has gained great things, but today has lost everything'.
February 15, 2018
As others have aptly pointed out, this is far less a history than it is a commentary. Chesterton's idiosyncratic political worldview and incredible wit are on charming display, but this book essentially assumes that the reader is already familiar with the people, places, and events which it describes. Chesterton has a refreshing sympathy for medieval society, while maintaining with Chestertonian subtlety a deep respect and affection for the Roman imperial culture which preceded it.
It's probably a more useful read for someone interested in Chesterton's anti-artistocratic, anti-conservative right wing political worldview, which is deeply interesting, than it is for someone looking to learn anything about English history. It also provides an interesting portal into the mindset of an English intellectual grappling with the unfolding cultural ramifications of the First World War.
Prosaic, indeed. Scholarly, not at all.
It's probably a more useful read for someone interested in Chesterton's anti-artistocratic, anti-conservative right wing political worldview, which is deeply interesting, than it is for someone looking to learn anything about English history. It also provides an interesting portal into the mindset of an English intellectual grappling with the unfolding cultural ramifications of the First World War.
Prosaic, indeed. Scholarly, not at all.
April 30, 2021
I've always knew the reputation of Chesterton as a silver-tognued orator, but I always admired his writing and wit until I read this book of his.
His Christianity, as seemed to me before, was deeper and more profound than the pickering sectarianism of the fanatic. However, in this work he shows his absolute loyalty to Christianity even against the facts. The chapter where he talked about the crusades portrays shameful ignorance and no attempt at all to be faithful to the facts. Islamic civilisation at the time is swept away by comic literary devices.
Furthermore, he obtains the habit of an essayist and journalist the whole time. He always seeks for the novel and new. He constantly misrepresents others' views then comes with a right hook of a metaphor to knock them all down. I consider his attempt at tackling this subject a failure.
The one thing that I liked though is his unorthodox view on some points.
His Christianity, as seemed to me before, was deeper and more profound than the pickering sectarianism of the fanatic. However, in this work he shows his absolute loyalty to Christianity even against the facts. The chapter where he talked about the crusades portrays shameful ignorance and no attempt at all to be faithful to the facts. Islamic civilisation at the time is swept away by comic literary devices.
Furthermore, he obtains the habit of an essayist and journalist the whole time. He always seeks for the novel and new. He constantly misrepresents others' views then comes with a right hook of a metaphor to knock them all down. I consider his attempt at tackling this subject a failure.
The one thing that I liked though is his unorthodox view on some points.
June 14, 2019
Don't read this book, if you have never read a history of England. Despite the title, it is not a short summery of the primary events in English history; it is a short philosophical work about English history.
Chesterton writes in his typical flair for paradox and philosophy about his opinions of the trends in English history. Typical statements: "Though the Dane got the crown, he did not get rid of the cross," "The Magna Carta was not a step towards democracy, but a step away from despotism," and "In Scotland, Puritanism was the main thing...In England, Parliamentary oligarchy was the main thing."
If you already know English history, you will enjoy the quirky statements and strong opinions (biased strongly in favor of Christianity, especially Catholicism) that help you to see the big picture of English history.
Chesterton writes in his typical flair for paradox and philosophy about his opinions of the trends in English history. Typical statements: "Though the Dane got the crown, he did not get rid of the cross," "The Magna Carta was not a step towards democracy, but a step away from despotism," and "In Scotland, Puritanism was the main thing...In England, Parliamentary oligarchy was the main thing."
If you already know English history, you will enjoy the quirky statements and strong opinions (biased strongly in favor of Christianity, especially Catholicism) that help you to see the big picture of English history.
May 13, 2017
Not a history, it is more an essay or commentary on the history of England. He is looking from post WW 1 and pre WW 2. He is pro-Roman Catholic. He wonders at the idea that Britain is Teutonic. He looks for a true democracy which he does not find. He does see how government is beginning to function in the modern (1917) day.
He is a man of his time and today's reader will find much to object.
I find his speculation regarding keeping the medieval Roman Catholic church; but Anglicanism and further Protestantism which he equates with atheism will bother many and make a few think. Not that he does not compliment the Wesleyan efforts to better society.
Much to think about by a wonderful writer.
He is a man of his time and today's reader will find much to object.
I find his speculation regarding keeping the medieval Roman Catholic church; but Anglicanism and further Protestantism which he equates with atheism will bother many and make a few think. Not that he does not compliment the Wesleyan efforts to better society.
Much to think about by a wonderful writer.
December 6, 2020
I love Chesterton. His book Orthodoxy is one of my top five books of all time, from a prolific reader of nonfiction. His writing style is frequently witty, often poetic and always thought provoking. However, this book was not among my favorites. This short history had much in common with Churchill's four volume history of England. They both assume a great deal on the part of the reader. They often elude to stories that they assume every schoolchild should know, and merely give their own clever interpretation of the event. Since I did not go to school in England (being an American), I am not familiar with many of these stories. I'm sure that the failing is in my own education, but it leaves me feeling "left out on the joke" nonetheless.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews