“In spite of his faults he was never corrupted. If the child was father to the man, he was an inquisitive boy, observant of men and things about him, appreciative of beauty and form, especially in jewel and metal-work, attentive to detail in apparel, decoration, and ceremonial. He was affecionate and trustful by nature, but impulsive, easily distracted, and hot-tempered. His suspicion, his brooding memory of injuries long after they were generally forgotten, like his grateful reliance upon the few whom he felt he could really trust, may well have been fostered by his experiences as a boy in a court disturbed by the cross-currents of jealousy, faction, and ambition. He was easily frightened and disposed to swing violently from one side to another. He was not generous, though he was lavish; he was poor in judgement, though quick in perception; he was not magnaminous, though he could be dignified and decorous; he was devout rather than spiritually minded. Yet, when all has been said, Henry remains a decent man, and, in his way, a man to be reckoned with. He got through all his troubles and left England more prosperous, more united, more beautiful than it was when he was a child.”
- The Thirteenth Century 1216-1307
Whether one agrees with any or all of the above, Powicke’s description of Henry is full of nuances, which in turn stimulates thought (or should). Good for Powicke, say I.
No comments:
Post a Comment