| Title | : | Who Murdered Chaucer?: A Medieval Mystery |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0312335881 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780312335885 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 408 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 2003 |
Terry Jones' hypothesis is the introduction to a reading of Chaucer's writings as evidence that might be held against him, interwoven with a portrait of one of the most turbulent periods in English history, its politics and its personalities.
Who Murdered Chaucer?: A Medieval Mystery Reviews
-
Say what? Chaucer was murdered?
That was my thought when I saw this book in a discount bin outside the bookstore. I had no idea the great poet had been murdered, much less that there was a mystery surrounding it. Intrigued, I bought the book. That startling title hooked me.
And that is exactly what that so clever title is — an effective hook to sell the book. Chaucer’s murder actually is no more than a what if, a historical rumor. All the material about the possible murder is woven out of supposition and conjecture, reading between the lines of history. It barely rises above the level of making you wonder, "I suppose that might be a possibility." Indeed, the authors at no point even try to claim more than that.
The real meat of this book is in its illumination of late 14th century England and the court and kingship of Richard II. It challenges the view of Richard as failed king and tyrant. Instead, it presents his reign as encouraging openness and free inquiry, and his eloquent court as fostering the flowering of knowledge, the arts, and the rise of the English language. Chaucer, a courtier of the king with royal connections (he was brother-in-law to John of Gaunt) is the focus used to illustrate this re-evaluation.
Henry IV serves as the book’s villain, together with Thomas Arundel, the scheming Archbishop who orchestrated Henry’s rise and the power behind his throne. Grasping noble and scheming bishop together take down a popular, rightful king and replace a culture of intellectual inquiry with draconian church/state repression to maintain a stollen throne. Once again, Chaucer is used to illustrate this historical corrective, as his sudden disappearance from the historical record and rumor of his possible murder is presented as part of Archbishop Arundel’s reign of terror.
So this wasn’t exactly the book I expected when I saw that catchy title, but was nevertheless compelling. It’s arguments against the traditional views of Richard II and and the men who deposed him are intriguing, if not totally convincing. If you enjoy Medieval English history you will enjoy this book. -
Chaucer died about 1400: date uncertain. He was a protégé of Richard II, in whose reign Chaucer’s anti-Church writings were accepted. When Richard was deposed and murdered, Archbishop Thomas Arundel—“the Henry Kissinger of his day” —was given free rein. Opponents of Church hegemony were murdered. Chaucer may have been one of them. Burning at the stake for heresy was brought to England.
-
I didn't expect to enjoy this as much as I did. I thought I might find it amusing -- weird, that someone would think to try and figure out who murdered someone who common knowledge doesn't peg as being murdered, about which we have no forensic evidence. (So not like, say, King Tutankhamen, where at least there's potential forensic evidence to go on.) But this isn't like that: Terry Jones et al freely admit that there is no proof that someone did murder Chaucer: what they did was put forward a convincing argument as to why certain people would have wanted Chaucer silenced, and the evidence they can dig up which suggests it's possible he was, including censorship of his work, possible veiled references by other poets of the period, the lack of a will, and of course the abrupt ending of his life. All of these things have other explanations, which the authors admit, but taken all together, the idea isn't so outlandish.
It isn't an exercise like trying to discover who murdered someone because of fractures on their skull that could, barely conceivably, point to blunt-force trauma as a cause of death. It's a much more literary affair that I recognise -- being a historicist, this is what I do, for texts, except Terry Jones et al are reading history as a text. They look for motive, they identify the principle characters. Just as I might want to look at why Shakespeare endorsed the Tudor myth, they look at the politics of the time and apply it to Chaucer's writing, and that of his contemporaries.
My main criticism is that I was a little turned off by the sheer level of detail, much of it not relating to Chaucer. It's certainly an education about the whole situation in that period, though. I hadn't even really thought about the fact that Chaucer lived during the transfer of power from Richard II to Henry IV. Now I can't stop thinking about it. -
2.5 stars
This was a bit of a disappointment, largely because it could also be titled 'A Biased, Partial, Prejudiced and Revisionist History of the Reign of Richard II'. I realise there are 'Richard camps' and 'Henry IV' camps'. Thanks to Shakespeare, Richard II's reputation as a mad despot was largely unquestioned for centuries. A later re-examination led to the pendulum swinging the other way and Richard becoming nigh on a saint. I have studied this period of history in depth, using multiple sources including the very chronicles Jones cites here, and I fall somewhere between. Richard was a painfully insecure, narcissistic autocrat who nevertheless embraced an egalitarian attitude when it came to women and much of the lower classes, was kind to children and to his wives, patronised the arts which enjoyed a bountiful flowering during his reign and was no doubt a generous and charismatic friend. Unfortunately, both his good and bad points made him a terrible king - or at the very least, absolutely the wrong king for the period. Nor is this entirely his fault. Few monarchs ever faced the sort of trials he faced during his rule - the Great Revolt in 1381 when he was just 14, for instance, and the even more damaging Merciless Parliament of 1388. The latter most likely let to his growing paranoia and a burning desire for revenge, if not a complete mental break down: imagine being forced to preside silently over an event as one by one your friends and loved ones were dragged in front of you, pronounced guilty without trial and then executed. The 14th C didn't have a term for PTSD but the powerlessness of that situation would be enough to affect anyone. However, this does not exonerate Richard's own actions, many of which showed seeds of existence before 1388. The tantrums during which he lost his temper, often physically attacking his own courtiers and nobles (particularly dishonourable since they could not raise a hand to defend themselves against the king) are well documented by multiple independent sources. Naturally Jones skips this as it doesn't fit the narrative he wants to spin.
Then there's the troubling catalogue of things we know - and have plenty of evidence for - which Richard did in the years between 1381 and 1399; the bloody retribution visited on the rebels after promises of pardons and indulgences (which went on for years and were mitigated in large part by Queen Anne who often begged for mens' lives from her husband); the pressganging of justices of the peace and lawmen to overturn the treason laws so that Richard could use them to mean anyone who disagreed with his, especially the Appellants; the rewriting/ reinterpretting of laws to suit Richard's whim and convenience; the complete abolition of all parliaments; the issuing of blank chartres and promisery notes allowing Richard to bankrupt and ruin his own people, robbing the land he'd sworn to protect and breaking the Magna Carte. And then there's the murder of his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester; the execution of the Earl of Arundel without much of a trial; the conspiracy to kill his own cousin, Henry Bolingbroke and his Uncle, John of Gaunt. You can say there's little evidence for these latter, but there is just as little evidence that Henry IV later killed Richard. I'm 99% certain Henry did, btw, but in fact there's more evidence that Richard schemed to have his cousin murdered. Which brings us on to Richard's treatment of Henry, which was at times cruel, vindictive and downright unreasonable.
I'm not a Henry IV supporter especially. He was a fine knight but not especially charismatic or impressive as a king. His cold pragmatism led him to be ruthless at the wrong times; he broke promises to his subjects and lost their trust - not a hard thing to do in fairness: he'd usurped a throne complete with a shit show from Richard and after the latter's rule, most people were wary of king's full stop. He also allowed conservative Catholic Archbishop Thomas Arundel far too much free reign. I don't for one minute believe that England was taken without bloodshed - although it was very telling that Henry landed with 100 men and by the end of the month had more like 50,000 (seriously, I would love to know how 100 men bullied 50,000 devoted subjects of Richard II into switching sides. Could it be that they weren't especially devoted?) And yes the Lancastrians had a fine propaganda machine. There may well have been some amendment of the chronicles although to suggest the wholesale cover-up Jones insists happens is very unlikely. You can't condone Henry IV's actions either tbh. But he was not a monster. He cleaned up a lot of legal, taxation and structural government issues after Richard ran rough shod through them. It's fair to say that while these things are not interesting to most historians, that his son, Henry V would not have been able to achieve as much as he did had his father not built a framework. Not to excuse Henry IV's complete ineptitude with money, by the by, but even that was an unwitting learning experience for his son.
So that's my position. Richard was deeply troubled, jealous of his cousin, spiteful but also a man well ahead of his time. Henry was clever pragmatist, with little sense of humour, a poor grasp of finance and a disturbing willingness to be utterly ruthless when the occasion called for it. The latter was a better functional king. The former was a better patron of the arts - though let's not forget that Henry also patronised artists and writers from his teenage years onwards. (We know, because we have his accounts of the chamber.)
Having said all that, where does Chaucer come in? Well, it is important to understand the political climate he lived in because ultimately all art and literature reflects the time during which it was written. However, it's a huge leap to say that Chaucer was especially favoured by Richard. Jones seems to have ignored the fact that Chaucer was in the pay of John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, and was patronised and befriended by him from early in his career. Enough that Gaunt paid a ransom to get Chaucer returned when he was captured fighting in France; enough to help arrange a prosperous and advantageous marriage for Chaucer with Phillipa de Roet; enough to stand as surity for Chaucer's character and provide financial support when the poet was accused of 'Raptus' (which in medieval terms means the seizure of something to which a person has no right and is not necessarily sexual assault) by Cecily Champagne. Meanwhile Richard did pay an annuity to Chaucer and lucrative positions were found for him, but there was little or no personal contact. In fact, during a large proportion of Richard's rule, Chaucer's influence and popularity at court was decidedly low. It appears Richard preferred poets like John Gower.
So with three areas of serious revisionism going on here, if not gross inaccuracies, I was rather taken aback at the book. I suppose the chain of logical supposition Terry Jones weaves makes sense if you believe Richard was a maligned angel and Henry was a brute, and that Chaucer was a clear supporter of Richard - which again we have no evidence for and as he was a Lancastrian man and would have known Henry as a boy, was sponsored by Richard's hated uncle, seems very unlikely. The only evidence we have of Chaucer's allegiances are to logic, to humanity, to understanding and to principle. Honesty, I think he was very much of the opinion that you 'put not your trust in the princes of this world'. But if you allow that, then Jones entire case falls apart.
Or does it?
I went into this book agreeing that Chaucer was murdered and his works suppressed. I don't think Henry had anything to do with it - when he took the throne he engaged Chaucer as tutor for his children and offered him another annuity (which admittedly he was crap at paying because Henry was crap with money.) I also went in with a clear idea of who I believed had Chaucer murdered. It's the only thing that Jones and I agreed upon in the end.
As a final note, Jones - of whom I've always been a fan because Monty Python is seminal - is a good writer. I like his arch tone and his wit. He's at his absolute best when he is discussing Chaucer's work. The rest of it is just very thin supposition and I grew both annoyed and weary with it. Take this as a though experiment and add plenty of salt. -
From my research of Richard III and the Tudors I have every good reason to know university historians are frequently wrong, often on simple things such as dates. It should come as no surprise, when a massively able writer like Terry Jones turns his considerable attention to a subject like the death of Chaucer, conventional beliefs will be shattered.
I would venture that the research and analysis in this book is orders of magnitude better than that of any professor in any university, with all the universities' resources behind him. Part of the reason is Terry himself, part of the reason is the professional historian is hobbled by peer review and dare not look outside the conventional 'wisdom'. Mr. Jones is only interested in the truth.
What comes out of the book is a radical and far more believable version of:
the very noble and, in a modern sense, liberal Richard II,
the increasingly depraved and murderous usurper Henry IV,
and the manipulative and ungodly Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury.
Victors write history, and most of us poor fools stumble after them; not Terry Jones. It is very possible Henry and Arundel murdered England's greatest writer. -
It's impossible to imagine today a famous author just disappearing without a trace. However, given Henry IV and Archbishop Arundel brutal regime and suppression of pretty much any thought that remotely contradicted them, I suppose it is not surprising in the fifteenth century.
I was pleasantly surprised by this text; it was certainly much more than I expected but still with plenty of humor. The research seems thorough and the hypothesis is sound. It makes sense for Arundel to be the reason behind the disappearance of one of the greatest literary figures in history. -
I'll frequently say that I'm not interested enough in history to read an entire book on it, nor even to read historical fiction. However, there are the occasional exceptions. The title of this book is almost certainly what appealed to me when I added it to my to-read list 9 years ago, but the content kept me intrigued all the way through.
Jones' (et al.) thesis is that Chaucer was done away with, almost certainly with the knowledge of the usurper Henry IV and by his pal the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arundel (a nasty piece of work!). Fascinating stuff (though obviously not fascinating for those concerned around the turn of the century into 1400). The writing had me thoroughly engaged in the people and the events of the time.
I have to confess that I haven't read
The Canterbury Tales in anything other than a children's version (Usborne readers), but I did already know the gist of it. From reading this book I now have a much better understanding and I truly appreciate that. This was an excellent experience. -
Quite an interesting read, and will particularly appeal to people who like conspiracy theories. If you think Diana was killed by a confederacy of Martians, Freemasons and Jews you are sure to enjoy this.
To be positive:
1. It is nice to find someone (Terry Jones) who admires Richard II more than I do. I may have been his friend in a previous life, TJ was quite possibly Anne of Bohemia. Usually this era is discussed from the POV of St. Henry of Bolingbroke. (Yes Ian Mortimer, I do mean you!)
2. It's really interesting (to me) to read a book about this reign where the author has done his research and come up with original ideas. Too many historians of Richard II merely repeat the same old cliches about his 'tyranny' and so on and so forth. Jones has quite a serious look at the political background.
3. I enjoy reading about the detail of Chaucer's life - the guy fascinates me almost as much as Richard II.
On the other hand - everyone who knows me is aware that I am not exactly the Chair of Bolingbroke's fan club. BUT I suspect he had better things to do with his time than arrange for the bumping off of elderly (by the standards of the day!) poets on account of their scribblings. I am still less a fan of Archbishop Arundel, but similarly...
I have given the book 4 stars because, despite my misgivings quoted above, that's how much I enjoyed it. -
I stumbled across this book shortly after I stumbled across a documentary entitled “Chaucer”. Not realizing the documentary was by Terry Jones, I was pleasantly surprised—and even more pleasantly surprised that the show was more about Richard II’s England than about Chaucer. In the documentary he answered the question “who murdered Chaucer”, even though it wasn’t really asked. So of course I snatched up the book. As expected, Terry Jones writes witty, easy-to-read prose and I enjoyed his tongue-in-cheek style immensely. For example: “No matter where present-day historians place the origins of the Peasants’ Revolt, those in power who lived through it, particularly the clerics, had no doubt how it came about: it was all the fault of that arch troublemaker, John Wyclif. If he hadn’t encouraged all those people to start challenging the authority of the church establishment, none of this would have happened.” (Actually, historians place John Ball as the spiritual instigator, but Wyclif fits in better with his arguments.)
On the other hand, I really have mixed feelings about his approach. From the beginning (the introduction), we understand the position the author has taken: “During the previous thirty years (before the usurpation), England has enjoyed a period when almost anything could be thought and written, when almost any intellectual line could be pursued… In 1399, almost overnight, the country passed into an age of iron control, of Thought Police and of intellectual straitjacketing on a level that has never been equaled before or since in this country. It was as if the nation had passed from the Permissive Sixties straight into Stalin’s Russia.” Well, I wouldn’t exactly call this unbiased! And of course, the big bad wolf in post-Ricardian England was Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury. Well, he was the unofficial archbishop, really; on Henry IV’s return from outlawry, Arundel immediately assumed his former post (from which he was impeached) without any sanction from the Pope. And yes, Arundel must have been at loggerheads with Chaucer since they represented opposite sides of the heretical spectrum, especially as depicted in the Canterbury Tales.
Having studied Richard II pretty thoroughly for the last couple of years, I was familiar with everything Terry wrote about. But, even though I am a self-professed “Richardian”, there were times I had to shake my head at his conclusions—reached, in many cases, by stretching the truth as we know it, or at best, by making wide assumptions. In fact, the whole book is based on assumptions—and rather clever ones, too—but I can’t see how a reader, if unread in Richard II’s history, would fail to swallow Terry’s version of the story. It’s amusing, well-reasoned, and sympathetic. He doesn’t dwell on the unpleasant side of Richard’s “tyranny”; in fact, this whole episode is pretty much glossed over. Henry, on the other hand, is depicted as weak and easily led by the vindictive mastermind Arundel. And what of Chaucer’s murder; did he die naturally, or was he done away with? Well, we don’t know what happened. Why did he just disappear from the records? It all sounds so suspicious to the author, though he admits he can only speculate. I can’t say I’m convinced by his arguments. Did I enjoy the book? Mostly; a fan of Chaucer will probably gobble it up. My interest is in Richard, so I got a little bogged down in the appropriate Canterbury Tales chapters. Would I recommend it? For entertainment, naturally. For its historical value, I would point the reader elsewhere. -
Could you imagine the news reports now-a-days if a rather well-connected/ well-known author disappeared without a trace? No will, no official death report, nothing? That is exactly the mystery surrounding the death of Chaucer. Being a right-hand man to Richard II and opposed by Henry IV’s own right-hand man, Thomas Arundel, due to Chaucer’s reformist views; one can begin to speculate about his death. Accident? Illness? Murder? Allow Terry Jones et al and “Who Murdered Chaucer?” to investigate.
The conception of “Who Murdered Chaucer?” was the subsequent project of an academic research of a “coroner’s inquest” on Chaucer’s death amongst the authors. This led to the production of a book with research divided between the authors and compiled into a final novel.
Upon first glance, “Who Murdered Chaucer?” is eye-striking based on its glossy pages and colorful illumination-like illustrations. The text begins with a background look at Richard II’s court in a cultural and literary respect (Chaucer was a courtier and held positions under Richard). Although the book clearly has bias and pro-bias toward Richard II; the text does not focus on the reign politically (at least, not too much), and instead more on how Richard II embraced books, literature, poetry, letters, etc. This background is necessary to understand Chaucer’s role in court life. Thus, a well-detailed look into medieval and court life results.
Although not too difficult to read language-wise, Who Murdered Chaucer can become a bit dry and over-scholarly at points which can cause dissonance amongst some average readers. Furthermore, the flow is a bit choppy as it is noticeable that the book is a compilation of the various authors’ essays (and they all clearly have a different writing style). This also leads to the annoying habit of repetition in information-giving. Basically, the text can certainly be described as “heavy” and “lengthy” with much of the book focusing on Richard II and Henry IV rather than on Chaucer’s death. Although this is pleasing to the reader interested in Richard, it can be interpreted as off-course and slow to those who are more interested in Chaucer’s death. Simply put: depending on your interest, there are skimmable portions.
Despite this, the wealth of knowledge is impressive and annotated and provides a look into the realities behind Richard II and the Lancastrian propaganda which tried to deflate him. Who Murdered Chaucer provides a rather intimate look at the relationship between Richard II and Henry IV, the events leading up to Henry’s usurpation (and why Richard wasn’t as unpopular as we are meant to be believed), and Henry’s actions as Thomas Arundel’s puppet against Richard. Proof is offered that Henry didn’t have the support of the French to the extreme which are familiar with.
Terry Jones’s sections are most entertaining and well-written. It is obvious which are his due to his humor. The book would have been better, had it been wholly his. Sadly, it took about 200 pages before The Canterbury Tales and its implications (which possibly effects Chaucer’s disappearance) to be discussed. Although the tie-ins to Chaucer are thusly explored, they are somewhat far-fetched and merely are speculation. The conclusion of the text’s formal accusation is somewhat weak and predictable much, much earlier in the book.
Overall, Who Murdered Chaucer isn’t bad, but I did find myself often bored and wondering when the text would “get to the point”. The last 100 or so pages rush to emphasize the connection of events to Chaucer while not heavily convincing that he was murdered or was disposed of (although there is certainly a mystery surrounding his death which does raise debate). Simply, not an enthralling mystery-history book but well researched and scholarly. -
An engrossing re-examination of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV, and their possible effects on Chaucer's life and death. Terry Jones's portraits of the two kings are radically different from what conventional history has passed down, but he puts forth convincing arguments. Henry IV's attempts to stifle the arts, intellectualism, and the spread of the English language make for an interesting parallel to the anti-intellectual platforms of some present-day conservative political leaders.
-
Traveling back 600 years in history, Monty Python's Terry Jones and a team of intellectuals look at one of history's most important poets, Geoffey Chaucer, and hypothesize that perhaps this revered man did not die of natural causes. Their argument, as the title suggests, is that perhaps Chaucer was murdered. England in the 14th- and 15th-centuries was in a period of political turmoil. Richard II was offed under suspicious circumstances and his successor, Henry IV, was under a much different opinion on how his land would be controlled. A big fan of heretical burnings and censorship Henry IV ruled with a heavy fist with the significant aid of the even nastier Archbishop Thomas Arundel. Jones and Team suggest that Chaucer's writings were too subversive for the time, and in the process he angered a lot of very important people. The question is did he anger enough people to justify being murdered?
The first 200 pages or so of the book is the entire history of Richard II's reign and how the arts flourished. After his destruction by Henry IV the tides changed significantly and censorship played a large role in literary circles. This extensive portion of the book is purely contextual, allowing the reader to understand the changes that occurred and the central political figures who may not have been so smitten with Chaucer and his work. Until approximately page 200 there is very little information about Chaucer or his writing. Halfway through the book is when his work is finally discussed and Jones throws out arguments surrounding The Canterbury Tales as proof as to how Chaucer likely pissed off Arundel, etc. with his portrayals of different characters. The argument goes even further when Jones shares the investigations of the illuminated texts of Chaucer, showing how certain images in the text were apparently changed, often painted over, resulting in the images suspiciously not matching the descriptions Chaucer wrote in each sections' prologue.
Jones states from the beginning that there is no real evidence proving Chaucer was murdered; however, at the same time, there is no proof that he died of natural causes either. Chaucer had just taken on a 53 year lease, suggesting that he had no intentions of necessarily kicking the bucket. But at a time in history in which health and medicine left a lot to be desired there's no guarantee that the plague didn't get its claws into him. The fact that there is no medical record or death certificate or notice regarding Chaucer's death is where the question lies. After 1400 there is almost no reference to Chaucer at all. He simply disappeared. Is the disappearance a product of poor historical record-keeping, or evidence pointing to the work of a power-hungry sycophant such as Archbishop Arundel?
A fascinating and fun read, filled with images from illuminated texts and medieval art. The first portion read slower for me than the second, mostly as I was impatient to delve into Chaucer's work and really dissect it. It was important to understand the history of Chaucer's contemporaries in placing him in specific relationships (his brother-in-law was John of Gaunt, another very powerful member of society). Once the text delved into The Canterbury Tales and took on a more CSI approach I dug the book even more. And while there are no definitive answers as he admits from the opening paragraphs there is an abundance of food for thought. At times it felt like a juicy episode of Dateline in which at the end the viewer is asked to determine for oneself what one thinks really happened. -
Speculation is FUN! Who really killed the Princes in the Tower? Was Anne Boleyn really unfaithful? Was Richard the Lionheart gay? History is full of wonderful questions that are tantalizing and intriguing, and I love to fantasize about who did what to whom. In this tasty little volume, Terry Jones(yes, the guy from Monty Python!) stirs up a salty broth of medieval gossip, historical theory, some truly impressive research(What? You thought comedians were illiterate?) and a vivid style of narration to pique your appetite. Starting with the puzzling fact that Chaucer, rock-star famous in his day, just disappears from history, Jones speculates that perhaps we have no record of Chaucer's demise because somebody powerful wanted it that way. Assuming that might be so, who had reason to despise Chaucer(said to be an amiable fellow) so much that he or she might contemplate "the foul and midnight thought." Chaucer was a favorite of King and Court, so who would dare to harm him? He had a successful career in the royal household, serving two kings as a diplomat as well as a poet. His wife was sister-in-law to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the wealthiest peer of the Realm, son and uncle to kings. Chaucer was as well-documented as any commoner was likely to be, so why is there no mention anywhere of his death? A puzzlement, no? YES! Jones provides us with a perpetrator with a realistic reason to hate the poet, and power enough to manage the death of a public figure. I won't reveal Jones' choice of murderer, but I will say that I was fascinated by his theories and would love to have more books like this. I will leave it to you to decide whether you agree with his clever speculations, but I will tell you to hurry and read this book!
-
Ex-Python and well-known historian Terry Jones delves deep into territory he's quite familiar with in Who Murdered Chaucer?: A Medieval Mystery.
Written in the typical British dry (but wonderfully cheeky) way, Jones and Co. cover all the "what ifs" and "who dunnits" during the turbulent years when King Henry IV and Thomas Arundel bent history to better suit the Lancastrian point of view - placing poet and public servant under the old regime of Richard II Geoffrey Chaucer right in the middle of a maelstrom. His frequent jabs at the church (Lollard alert!) and daring to compose works in the English vernacular instead of French or Latin didn't help matters either. Thumbing your nose (if ever so craftily like The Canterbury Tales) at the establishment back in those days meant you disappeared from the record books altogether. And that's exactly what happened to Chaucer! One of the greatest poets/authors/translators to ever come out of Great Britain and historians can't even agree exactly when or even where he died. Possibly in exile, possibly in sanctuary at Westminster, possibly locked away in a castle, or possibly meeting a nefarious end by the roadside...
A delightful read all around. -
Not really a true-life crime story about Geoffrey Chaucer mysterious disappearance from the historical records, because the historical records are so scant and circumstantial that no one can say for sure if, how, why, by whom, or when Chaucer might have been murdered. Leaving aside foul play, historians don't even know when Chaucer died period!
So that leaves the authors (Jones is a former member of Monty Python, so the text sparkles with dry British wit) with little to go on except contextual documentation, textual criticism, and speculation. This results in an interesting but revisionist history of the period of King Richard II and the usurping King Henry II (basically 1375-1400). All the speculation makes for fascinating reading, but its history out on a limb. How much can you rely upon out of all the "maybes"?
It also makes for a wondering focus sometimes seemingly far afield from the title subject and a sometimes more detailed history of the surrounding characters and contexts than the title suggests. Not a bad effort, but don't judge the book by its title. -
As witty and engaging a history as I've ever read. Jones, et al. freely admit that their premise is nearly impossible to prove. Still, they dive into it wholeheartedly, drawing a picture of a world turned firmly on its head by the deposition of Richard II. Chaucer, used to the freedom provided by his benefactor's court, suddenly found himself facing a world where his brand of political and religious humor was not tolerated. He may still have simply died peacefully in his sleep, but the authors convincingly argue that something much more dastardly may have happened.
-
This book is a fascinating and meaty project between the late, great Terry Jones and a gathering of professional historians, a painstaking argument which provides a picture of medieval life. It was a weird experience to get round to reading it in 2020 - life is rather less red in tooth and claw but it was possible to see some strong parallels (no difficulty picking out the Dominic Cummings in this tale)
-
Full of the details that help the literary enthusiast understand the political background of Chaucer's life and, probably, his death. I read it years ago, when it was new, and it only became more valuable with rereading. I relied on the library's copies, but I decided the book's notes and bibliography were so valuable that I wanted my own copy.
-
This is a great perpsective on how history was manipulated by the throne of England.
-
The late Monty Python star has joined several historians and written an intelligent and witty book about a potential conspiracy that began around 1400 with the death of the great poet Geoffrey Chaucer. The book speculates and postulates on the death of an important cultural icon of the past whose life is known mainly through his writing and the scant historical documents from the time period.
Much of what we know about Chaucer came decades and even centuries later. The book explores the changing times of the 1390's which started out with what I would equate to "The Summer of Love" under King Richard II and end with King Henry IV and the Archbishop of Canterbury beating subjects into intellectual, religious, and political submissions.
I am no expert but one only needs to do a cursory online search to determine that Jones et. al. stretched the truth a bit about the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV. All the good bits about Richard II are highlighted while all the bad bits about Henry IV are likewise brought forward to assist in the narrative.
Still, it is clear that a lot happened during 1399-1400 with the displacement and probable execution of Richard II and the seizure of the throne by Henry IV, which really upset Chaucer's apple cart. The question Jones tries to answer is whether any of this led to Chaucer's untimely death. His death is not well-documented.
Jones suggests that Chaucer, who was one of the leading poets and developers of the English language, fell out of favor and his death may have been helped along. He cites the unstable times and circumstantial evidence to support his claim. But the speculation is compelling.
Jones never says he knows the answer and instead presented his case with an approachable style of prose and the occasional one-liners using 21st Century lexicon, phraseology and jargon. He supports his claims firmly in the way he analyzes Chaucer's words and by using the 14th Century translations of some words with that have multiple definitions by the standards of the day.
There is a whole chapter devoted to whether the original artwork in "The Canterbury Tales" was altered to better suit the changing world rather than Chaucer's idealistic one. I found that section to be very intriguing.
The book was a fascinating read from start to finish. In the grand scheme of the world, does it really matter 600+ years later how Chaucer died? Maybe not, but this book gives the reader much to ponder.
I'll say one more thing, it has also seeded my interest in reading more of Chaucer's work. Medieval English and all. And fortunately, you can do a lot of that online these days. -
Some really interesting stuff in this one, particularly about re-evaluating the reputation of Richard II against the reign of Henry IV. It does a really thorough job of analysing the political and spiritual ramifications of change, and sets Chaucer's work against that. The most interesting bit was the stuff about Richard II. If we're talking about conspiracy theories then I'm on board with Chaucer having been murdered. We don't, however, get answers about who, which is perhaps par for the course with a mystery that's 600 years old. Interesting, though. Really interesting.
-
I wasn't able to actually finish this, but I plan to at some point. I got about halfway through before having to drop it for now because of the specific edition; no matter how much I love a book, I can't read from gloss white paper. I can only make it through about ten pages of gloss white before my brain is wiped out, even with my magic sunglasses.
The half of the book that I was able to read, though, was exactly what I look for in this kind of history book. If I ever find a copy of it that's bound in duller paper, I'll definitely pick it back up. -
I read this many years ago, back when I was at University, to prepare for my dissertation on Richard II. I was also taking a course on Chaucer for my history degree, and so this was a very enjoyable book to read.
I remember enjoying reading it, though I couldn't give much criticial insight when it's been a good 17 or 18 years since I read it.
That aside, I'd recommend it to anyone who loves history, or is interesting in learning more about Chaucer and the time in which he lived.
I'd also recommend Terry Jones' other book, Chaucer's Knight, which is equally fascinating. -
I finished! I finally finished! I knew nothing about any of this, so it was interesting to slowly work through as I got an idea of the historical time period. Boy, what a time to be alive…
But this was an entertaining book, if a bit dry and drawn out in parts for what I assume is mostly meant to be a popular history moreso than a scholarly one. Still, I learned some stuff. Will I remember it all? I mean… -
Terry Jones is a wonderful writer and historian, and this book is chock full of information. Regardless, I found this to be difficult to finish. Ultimately I think this would have made a great 2-hour documentary or even a mini-series on The History Channel or Discovery or BBCA, but this was not easy for me to sit and read.
-
3.5
