Re writing history
Sir: I am astonished by Robert Stewart's review of my most recent book, The Fears of Henry IV (Books, 21 July). Why exactly is it 'graceless' of me to point out that Henry IV is the leastbiographied English king since the Conquest? Why does he describe that same phrase (leastbiographied) as 'sense-defying'? It is true.
Mr Stewart criticises me for suggesting that we can learn a lot more about a mediaeval man by looking at him sympathetically, through a biography, instead of sitting in judgment on him in a pompous, we-are-certain fashion. Patently lacking the knowledge to evaluate the actual assertions and suggestions in my book, he criticises instead the manner of them. In particular he does not like my use of 'probably' and 'must have'. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the rest of the world as to how we can declare the whole and absolute truth about the past? He cannot have it both ways. Innovation needs to be exploratory but, in writing history, one must still alert the reader to where something is doubtful.
Ian Mortimer (Dr) University of Exeter
Previous page
