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!
Nice. Perhaps I'll take a look.
ReplyDeleteThe 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