It was Napoleon who said History is written by the winners.
Hilary Mantel is not an historian. She is a gifted English writer of historical fiction. Her best selling books have won many awards and made her a Dame of the Realm. In recent years, Hilary Mantel wrote a trilogy of historical novels about the life and public career of Thomas Cromwell.
She published “Wolf Hall” in 2009, “Bring Up the Bodies”
in 2012 and “The Mirror and the Light” in 2020. They tell her story of Thomas Cromwell, King Henry the VIII’s right hand man during the Reformation in England. He arranged the annulment of the King’s marriage
to Queen Catherine and Henry's subsequent marriages to Anne Boleyn and others. As Henry’s
Private Secretary and Chief Minister, Cromwell enforced the growth of the English
Reformation, with Henry as the Head of the Church of England and the
dissolution of the monasteries, among other things. In doing so he became very powerful and very wealthy.
In telling of these turbulent Tudor times, Mantel portrays Thomas Cromwell as a hero and Henry’s Chancellor of the Exchequer , Sir Thomas More, as a villain. In contrast, most historians hold that Thomas Cromwell was far from heroic, while Sir Thomas More was prepared to oppose his friend, King Henry, and die upholding his strong, faith based beliefs. Robert Bolt’s play, “A Man for All Seasons” promotes this popularly held view of the man whom the Catholic Church later canonised as St Thomas More.
Fortunately for Napoleon, his career was of such brilliance and Greek tragedy, that even respected historians of the British, who were the victors, have written of him as an heroic figure whose place in history is assured. Mantel, on the other hand has re-written history, without producing any evidence, to deliberately besmirch Thomas More and praise the character of Thomas Cromwell. In her book, Mantel devotes some time portraying Cromwell as a good, family man. Respected historian, Simon Schama, who regularly presents historical documentaries, as well as writing a number of history books, is one of many historians who are critical on Mantel's rewriting of history. Schama strongly refutes that Cromwell being a "good family man" had any bearing on his character. He says: "Sure, he was a good family man. So was Himmler."
Mantel was raised as a Catholic. At age eleven her father left the family. At age twelve, Mantel says she lost her Catholic faith. Her book, “Giving up the Ghost”, tells of her rejection of Catholicism and her antipathy towards the Catholic Church. She says that her goal in writing “Wolf Hall” was “to attack the image of St. Thomas More that is associated with Robert Bolt’s highly principled “Man For all Seasons” view of the man.
The generally accepted facts are that More did not agree with Henry’s decision to annul his long marriage to Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. He chose death before dishonour. As a devout Catholic, he also could not accept Henry appointing himself above the Pope as the Head of the Catholic Church in England. Henry saw this as treason to the Monarchy. Thomas Cromwell sided with King Henry and worked against Thomas More. As Henry’s new Chief Minister, Cromwell acquired great power and wealth. He managed the Reformation. The Dissolution of the Monasteries brought great wealth to the King’s treasure house and a lot of the treasure was also acquired by Thomas Cromwell. He also conspired to send many innocent men and women to their deaths.
So, what Hilary Mantel is giving us is really “Fake History.” Does it really matter? Dan Brown rewrote history in his best selling, “The Da Vinci Code”. However, in the Introduction to his novel, Brown clearly states “This is a work of fiction”. Still, millions believed it to be the Gospel truth. Mantel makes no such disclaimer, though many critics see it, not as history, but as an historical novel. Of course we are all used to American films which say that they “are based on a true story” but generally have little resemblance to what actually happened.
Naturally, a lot of Catholics are upset at the villainous portrayal of their revered St Thomas More. Simon Schama is one. However, not only Catholics and Catholic historians are critical of Mantel’s depictions of historical figures. Professor David Stanley, historian and President of Britain’s National Secular Society said there is “not a scruple of evidence” for Mantel’s story, which he describes as “a total work of fiction”. Simon Schama, writing in The London Financial Times, said that historical novelists do have some leeway for invention and imagination but that Hillary Mantel had gone too far with her “Wolf Hall” trilogy.
“It grates a bit”, says Schama, “that millions now think of Thomas Cromwell as a much maligned, misunderstood pragmatist from the school of hard knocks, who got precious little thanks for doing Henry the VIII’s dirty work”
Cromwell’s eventual undoing came from his involvement in Henry’s many marriages. After helping Henry to marry Anne Boleyn, Cromwell later arranged for her beheading and Henry’s subsequent marriage to Jane Seymour. When Jane Seymour died in childbirth, Cromwell saw an opportunity to increase Henry’s influence in Europe by having him marry Anne of Cleves. Unfortunately, Anne of Cleves was a rather plain looking lady and Henry did not like her. The marriage was not consummated and Henry was angry with Cromwell for arranging this marriage. As is often the case with people who do all sorts of things to ingratiate themselves with a powerful King, Cromwell became the King’s next main victim. He fell foul of several powerful courtiers. They saw their chance over the Anne of Cleves fiasco and prevailed on the angry Henry to arrest Cromwell for treason and have him beheaded. Some historians report that Cromwell, when he knew his death by beheading was imminent, requested that he his funeral be under the “old religion”. That is, the rites of the Catholic Church which he had persecuted with great dedication over the previous five years. Historians also say that King Henry later regretted killing in anger the man who had brought him such great wealth and power.
Schama pointed out that while researching his well regarded, “A History of Britain”, the documents “shouted to high heaven that Thomas Cromwell was, in fact, a detestably self serving, bullying monster who perfected state terror in England, cooked the evidence and extracted confessions by torture.” It is fair to point out that torture was almost standard practice in those days. Even Sir Thomas More is accused of burning heretics and traitors to King Henry VIII. That was the standard operating procedure of the 16th Century. However, Thomas Cromwell was a past master of those Dark Arts.
From time to time, other historians pop up and tell us that what we all once knew to be true may, in fact, be closer to fantasy. In Australia, the“Terra Nullius” of the British in the 18th Century is a classic example. Despite indigenous people living in Australia for 60 000 years, the British policy of "Terra Nullius” said that nobody lived there. They planted a flag and claimed the lot for King George III.
Historians generally produce documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. I found this out when studying Political History at the University of Western Australia in the 1960s. When studying, “The Renaissance and the Reformation” I was stunned when my learned professors expounded that the Reformation was not so much about Faith and Morals as it was about cold hard cash and the acquisition of property. As Bill Clinton once said, “It’s the Economy, stupid!” I was to learn that economic issues are behind just about every great social upheaval in human history. Certainly, economic issues have caused most of our wars, religious and otherwise.
While I was re-examining the real cause of The Reformation, Professor Geoffrey Blainey published a book about the causes of European settlement of Australia, or New South Wales, as that eastern part of our, wide, brown “Terra Nullius” was called in the 1780s. It was titled, “The Tyranny of Distance.” At that time every Australian schoolchild could tell you European settlement in Australia started because England sent out a fleet of ships under Captain Philip in 1788, for the purpose of establishing a convict colony. This was due the great number of convicts in London and the recent, sudden loss of the American colonies as a place to lock them up.
Blainey argued otherwise. He said Britain could have sent convicts to Canada, much closer to England and even larger than Australia. In fact there were convicts in Canada in 1788. Why, asked Blainey, did the British government send a fleet of convicts, and soldiers to guard them, 15 000 kilometres to the far side of a largely unknown world? Especially, when Canada was much closer and still very empty in 1788.
The answer, Blainey says, was the British Navy. Britain had built its vast empire, in part, by the mighty power of its navy. “Britannia rules the waves” was a truism that enabled it to rule over a third of the globe. Blainey produced documents that showed Philip’s first fleet was instructed to investigate the suitability of tall Norfolk Island Pine Trees as masts for British naval vessels. These tall trees had been mentioned by the great navigator, Captain James Cook, on his voyages of discovery in the Pacific Ocean between 1768 until 1779. Blainey also produced documents to show that the British Admiralty was also interested in the Pacific Island Breadfruit Plant. It was felt these could be used to manufacture stout canvas sails.
Blainey also asked the question, why did Captain
Philip, having just sailed 15 000 kilometres to a great unknown land (to
Europeans), then send an expeditionary ship 2000 kilometres across the Pacific Ocean to establish a settlement at Norfolk
Island less than a month after his arrival? It was a good question. Blainey’s answer was the tall Norfolk Pine Trees and breadfruit. He says these were two major reasons for Captain Philip’s First Fleet
being sent to far flung Botany Bay in the first place. Actually, Captain Philip only stayed a few days in Botany Bay before relocating to a more suitable settlement in Port Jackson, which became known as Sydney Cove.
Well, it turned out that the Norfolk Island Pine Trees were useless as ship’s masts and the breadfruit was no good for sail making. Still, Professor Blainey made valid points and he produced documents to back his arguments.
This is not the case with Hilary Mantel’s treatment of Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. She has given us her version of history which is quite contrary to the facts. Again, does it matter? Her books are excellently written and very, very popular. However, popularity is not proof of goodness and certainly not of truth. Adolf Hitler was popularly elected by the German people in 1933. He soon became the German Chancellor and then Fuhrer of the Third Reich. Look how that turned out.
More recently, Donald Trump received over 70 million votes in the 2020 Presidential election. That is the most votes ever received by a sitting President. Fortunately, to the relief of almost everyone in the free world, Joe Biden received about 80 million votes. Trump's popularity does not make him right.
Donald Trump made a lot of noise about “Fake News”. Anything he disagreed with was “Fake News” The trouble was that what he told his followers was fact, was often ‘Fake” news. Very, very fake! We all watched in horror as his deluded followers, fuelled with Trump’s patently fake news about voting conspiracies, attacked the U.S. Capitol building, threatening mayhem and murder on those who stood in their way. Trump’s “Fake News” made them think they were patriots.
Of course, as Simon Schama says, authors should be
allowed to brighten their historical stories with creativity and imagination.
However, we damage the “Truth” at our peril, as the recent Trump experience sadly demonstrates
I agree with the many historians who are on record asking what responsibilities novelist have when they rewrite historical events for their own purposes? Will we have historical novelists in 200 years time writing stories about Nazi Germany and portraying Adolf Hitler as a patriotic statesman who rescued Germany from the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, who overcame record inflation, got Germany industries working again and who was maliciously maligned by dastardly Communists and those evil warmongers, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt?
Hillary Mantel clearly portrays Sir Thomas More in a derogatory way for her own purposes. By her own admission, she altered the facts to present historically incorrect portrayals of Thomas Cromwell and St Thomas More. We need to remember that, just likeThe Da Vinci code, her books are works of fiction with no real resemblance to the historical truth.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful gift. It is sullied when people use it to deliberately falsify the Truth.
