An enlightened look at the Middle Ages with Terry Jones

When Terry Jones, who studied history at Oxford University, co-directed, co-wrote and co-starred in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," he was lampooning an epoch he understood very well. Post-Python, Jones has created a new career as a medieval scholar with a lighthearted approach to serious academic topics.

His groundbreaking 1980 book, "Chaucer's Knight: Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary," argued that the chivalrous hero of the Canterbury Tales was in fact a bloodthirsty killer for hire. The book is now required reading in many university history departments. His follow-up -- "Who Murdered Chaucer?" -- was a nonfiction whodunnit about the unexplained death of England's greatest medieval author, speculating that he was killed by tyrannical King Henry IV for being a politically troublesome critic. Jones created a history series for the BBC that disputed the popular portrait of the Middle Ages offered by Renaissance historians, contending that damsels were feistier, kings crueler and peasants better educated than their chroniclers let on.

Jones will speak about the not-so-dark ages Friday at Augsburg College to benefit Medieval Minnesota, a summer camp at Augsburg for students ages 14 to 17. Proceeds will provide scholarships to the camp.

Q You write that our view of medieval life is unduly grim because historians maligned the period. It's easy to see why a nobleman might want to burnish his image by commissioning a writer to vilify a predecessor, but who would benefit from a campaign to disparage an era?

A A very interesting question. Well, in the first place, it would have been the thinkers of the Renaissance, who wanted to establish a break with the past. They also wanted to establish their own sense of importance by belittling what had gone before. This then gets taken up by the promoters of Renaissance culture who are keen to establish its supremacy over the medieval world -- particularly since the Renaissance is a backward-looking movement which harks back to the classical world rather than establishing something new.
In the 20th and 21st century, Renaissance values have been adapted to fit the modern capitalist world. The whole myth that there was no sense of human individuality before the Renaissance is part of this attempt to make the present day seem the culmination of human progress, which I don't think it is.

Q Then how did the unrealistic stereotypes of the noble knight and the ignorant, downtrodden peasant originate and why have they persisted?

A Well, undoubtedly you did have proud and unfeeling aristocrats who treated the peasants like dirt. Also, the Middle Ages is a wide span of time, and there were times and places where the peasantry would undoubtedly have been downtrodden and ignorant. So there is a basis for all that. But the little bit of history I'm interested in -- late 14th century England -- saw a rise in education and the pursuit of knowledge amongst ordinary people -- partly it was a result of the Black Death and the fact there were so few people around that everyone was questioning everything. But it was a time of intellectual activity amongst all classes. Much more so than today.

Q Washington Irving, who gave us "Rip van Winkle," apparently also contributed some fabrications that still distort our view of medieval life?

A Yes. He seems to have been responsible to a large degree for promoting the myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat and that this formed part of Church doctrine. It never did, and people didn't think the world was flat. Chaucer himself talks about "this world that men say is round." There's a fascinating book called "Inventing the Flat Earth" by Jeffrey Burton Russell, which sets the whole story out.

Q What does this tell us about the trustworthiness of historians, in general? Do you have any advice on how to spot a sound or flawed account of the past? Is there such a thing as history or only histories?

A Well, I think you're right that there is no such monolith as "history" in the singular. I think every age writes its own histories and I think it's important that they do. It's how we help to define ourselves and to know who and where we are. I don't think there is any rule of thumb to spot distorted history any more than there is to spot distorted news that we read today in the press or watch on TV.

The main thing is to be aware that the makers of "spin" are at work today just as much as they were in the Middle Ages or at any time in human history. It's all a bit like a detective story. We have to look for the motives behind what leaders do rather than take at face value the reasons that they give us. It's just the same with history.

Q How has your study of the distant past affected your thinking about our present and future?

A I think my reading of the Middle Ages made me more politically conscious. I see the same people seeking power, and using the same techniques to keep power, whether it be propaganda, media control or religion. The one thing that is certain is that people don't change and the same untruths and reasons for going to war, for example, prevail now as they always did. In the late 14th century, Richard II tried to establish peace with France, but this flew in the face of the interests of those barons who made their money out of warfare, and who were adamantly opposed to Richard and who, in the end, managed to depose and murder him so that they could carry on making money despite the bloodshed and destruction. Nothing changes.

By Colin Covert, Star Tribune