Royal Responsibility in Anglo-Norman Historical Writing by Winkler Emily A.;

Author:Winkler, Emily A.; [Winkler, Emily A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press USA - OSO
Published: 2017-09-07T00:00:00+00:00

Responsibility and Redemption

Readers may now be viewing John as an eternal optimist: no matter what happened, the English and their king deserved recognition. It might seem that John’s attitude towards English kings was simplistic: an English king could do no wrong. But we know that this was not the case, based on a later work—the Chronicula, a brief account of English history94—and his views of William Rufus, and King Stephen in his own day.95 John could and did critique English kings, so his decision not to do so in the Chronicon is the more noteworthy. The best moment to see why John’s views of royal responsibility are so significant—and not inevitably favourable—is in a comparison of his rewritings of ASC for 1087 [1088], wherein he gives two different interpretations of the actions and character of a later eleventh-century king: William Rufus. His story about Rufus is one of internal rebellion in England, not invasion, based on an ASC annal written in the post-Conquest era. Nevertheless, John’s portrayal of this English king is consistent with his revision of ASC in his narratives of eleventh-century defending and conquering kings.

ASC reports that Rufus, deeply troubled, pleaded for the support of the English, promising them the best law, no unjust taxes, and free use of the land. The promises lasted only a short while (‘ac hit ne stod nane hwile’), but the English came to the aid of their lord, the king (‘englisce men swa þeah fengon to þam cynge heora hlaforde on fultume’).96 The important implication is that the people were right to support Rufus because he was their king and lord, regardless of either his behaviour or the effectiveness of his defensive measures.

Unsurprisingly, given the examples we have seen of indicted kings, John’s shorter work, the Chronicula, for 1088 points out expressly not only that Rufus’s promises were short-lived, but also that the king deceived (‘mentitus est’) the people in making promises he had no intention of keeping. The English emerge as the wronged party, because John explains that they put faith in the royal promises, and proved more faithful and more helpful to the king than his Norman supporters.97 The material derives from ASC, but the interpretation is original.98 John unreservedly castigates Rufus for failing to uphold his responsibilities as king.

Yet in the Chronicon, John does not accuse Rufus of failing to honour his promises. In a manner that differs notably from both ASC and his own Chronicula, John makes this bold revision:

When the king heard this news, he was unusually troubled, but confident in his royal rights and his energetic military valour. He sent envoys, summoned those he believed he could rely on, and went to London to prepare for the affairs of war, and to provide the provisions needed for an army. He gathered together an army of horsemen and footsoldiers, although of moderate size, made up principally of Englishmen and of as many Normans as he could find. He made laws, promised bountiful rewards to his supporters, and,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.