My mother has just sent me this:
She thought I would be interested as I am a mild Ricardian, having been introduced to Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time, as read by Derek Jacobi, when I was about 14. To be honest, Jacobi’s voice was, and still is, the primary appeal, but I do enjoy the book and I still find myself excited about the idea of history as a detective story, an investigation and uncovering of the ‘truth’.
What interested me most about the clip, however, was the fact that it is a Horrible Histories production. Now, my two are still too young to watch the television show, although I have read some of the Horrible History books and several interviews with Terry Deary, who is depressingly rude about historians and history teachers. But I was recently discussing the television programme with a friend whose older children apparently love it, and she herself finds it witty and amusing, so I was interested to see something of what I have been missing.
I have to admit that this clip does not allay any of my concerns about the programme as a teaching tool. Yes, it does point out that Thomas More and Shakespeare (who based his play on More’s history) are biased sources. But significantly it completely fails to present any sort of evidence, in however an amusing form, as to why the story we think we know about Richard is wrong. Instead, it just asserts that he is not all the things that history has portrayed him as.
Having spent far too long commenting on undergraduate essays (and even the occasional professional monograph) about the problem of asserting rather than proving statements about the past, this worries me. History as a discipline rests on the skill of marshalling sources to prove an argument. Those sources may be suspect or biased. They may appear mutually contradictory, particularly when they are personal narratives. They are often problematic, which is why historians can carry on arguing about the same thing (Was Richard a good king or a monster? Was the First World War a futile waste of a generation or a principled defence of democracy?) generation after generation, as new evidence is uncovered or a new perspective is put forward. Used properly historical evidence can change minds. I have read very good arguments as to why Richard probably was a usurper who killed his nephews, based on evidence of his other actions prior their disappearance, which have moderated my earlier belief in his absolute innocence. But if evidence does not form part of the discussion then what you get isn’t so much historical debate as something more like this:
This isn’t history so much as children squabbling in the playground.
So, I will continue to approach Horrible Histories with a certain amount of circumspection and make sure that when my children are old enough to watch it that we discuss how we know what we think we know about the past, as well as what that past actually may have been.