Saturday, February 27, 2016

Richard the Lionheart by Jean Flori — A Review

Flori is a French historian, who first published this biography of Richard the Lionheart in Paris in 1999.  It was this fact that attracted me to the book, as I felt a French historian would bring a different perspective (as well as a consummate grasp of French sources) to the work.

The book is divided into two parts. The first part is a description of Richard’s life in chronological order, in short, a traditional biography. The second part examines the degree to which Richard reflected and/or shaped contemporary ideals of chivalry, a concept, as Flori stresses, that was still inchoate during Richard’s lifetime. The book also provides maps of the Plantagenet territories in the West and of the Holy Land, as well as two genealogy tables that are very useful.

On the whole, the first part is concise, straight-forward and balanced. As expected, Flori is more critical of Richard than John Gillingham in his biography, but does not paint Richard in a uniformly negative light.  As hoped, Flori is intimately familiar with the chronicles of the age, and subsequent historiography about Richard of England and his arch-rival, Philip II of France. Indeed, Flori errs on the side of citing too many sources to make the same point, highlighting nuanced differences in contemporary perspectives in a manner more suited to demonstrating academic credentials than helping the reader understand Richard.  Moreover, Flori too often lets the sources speak for him, rather than drawing his own conclusions confidently. Since most Medieval chroniclers were clerics, it is not surprising that the result is a rather bland picture overlaid by moralizing and preaching. As a result, Richard himself never seems to come entirely to life. I felt I learned a great deal about what churchman (both English and French) thought of Richard, but gained no insight into Richard Plantagenet himself.

This part of the book is further marred by an obvious unfamiliarity with history beyond Flori’s central area of expertise, i.e. the Plantagenet-Capet conflict and France in the late 12th century. Flori makes silly errors with respect to the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem such as claiming Isabella of Jerusalem married Humphrey de Toron “for love” (a princess at the age of 8?) or confusing Bohemond (son of the Prince of Antioch) with Raymond of Tripoli. Flori is also evidently woefully ignorant about the unconstitutional nature of Guy de Lusignan’s coronation, among other things.

The second half of the book in contrast is a useful, if somewhat academic, analysis of what chivalry was in Richard’s era. Flori explores 12th century perceptions of social order, the division of the world into those who pray, those who fight and those who work, and describes Richard’s relations with these three “orders.” Flori next looks at what and why prowess, largess and courtesy were the defining characteristics of chivalry, and analyzes the degree to which Richard fulfilled chivalric ideals. I found this part of the book intellectually entertaining and useful as a novelist writing about this period.  It remains flawed, however, by the dependence on essentially clerical sources. Knights and lords — much less ladies — do not have much of a voice here. In consequence I was left feeling I had only half the story.

Richard the Lionheart, and Balian fought together against Saladin in the Third Crusade. Their -- initially hostile -- relationship and joint efforts are described in the third book of my Balian series, Envoy of Jerusalem, which is scheduled for release later this year. The first and second books in the series are already available for purchase.

A landless knight, 
a leper king,
and the struggle for Jerusalem.

 A divided kingdom,
a united enemy,
and the struggle for Jerusalem

Buy now in Paperback or Kindle format!                                                 Buy now!


1 comment:

  1. Nice. Perhaps I'll take a look.

    The thing I find most lacking in biographies is honesty . . . with ourselves. The historian, like anyone else, tends to view the subject from 20th/21st Century moralities.

    Richard wasn't good, but he wasn't bad either. He wasn't holy and he wasn't evil. What was he?

    A man of his age. I don't like a biography that does too much "judging." Who are we to judge?

    Perhaps we should ask Ridley Scott? LOL


I welcome feedback and guest bloggers, but will delete offensive, insulting, racist or hate-inciting comments. Thank you for respecting the rules of this blog.