Charles Dickens: A Child's History of England

Dickens, in his characteristic manner, doesn't bother to disguise the fact that this is neither intended for children nor a history at all, being rather a commentary. As such, the book holds little in the way of objectivity, and Dickens is comfortable referring to himself in the first person, saying such things as "in my opinion" and "or so I think" and going to some effort to disagree with the conventional wisdom whenever possible.

And in his opinion, admiration is due to very few of the monarchs indeed. Alfred the Great, Edward III and Henry V (also my favorite) are among the only ones for whom he has actual reverence, although he tolerates some of the others--chiefly those who died before given the chance to exhibit any bad qualities. His chief goal seems to be correcting the general public opinion of the other monarchs. For instance, of Elizabeth I he says:

"She was well-educated, but a roundabout writer [something of which Dickens himself could be accused, I might point out], and rather a hard swearer and coarse talker. She was clever, but cunning and deceitful, and inherited much of her father's violent temper I mention this now because she has been so over-praised by one party, and so over-abused by the another, that it is hardly possible to understand the greater part of her reign without first understanding what kind of a woman she really was."

He seems especially interested in abusing the popular nicknames of certain of the kings. "We now come to King Henry the Eighth," He writes in the appropriate chapter, "whom it has been much the fashion to all 'Bluff King Hal' and 'Burly King Henry,' and other fine names; but whom I shall take the liberty to c all, plainly, one of the most detestable villains who ever drew breath." This critique is at it's most effective when applied to "The Merry Monarch," Charles II. Dickens sets out "to give you a general idea of some of the merry things that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman sat upon his merry throne, in merry England." Certain executions, he observes sarcastically, "were so extremely merry that every horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived with appalling cruelty, The hearts of sufferers were torn out of their living bodies; their bowels were burned before their faces" etc.. Merry indeed.

Which brings us to the ruler of whom Dickens' opinion I find quite unaccountable: Oliver Cromwell. Now everyone to whom I have ever spoken and every book I have ever read on the topic has painted Cromwell as a perfect tyrant. Dickens has another opinion. "There was not at that time, in England or anywhere else, a man so able to govern the country as Oliver Cromwell" nicely sums up Dickens' analysis of the Protectorate. Both of the subsequent kings are on the short end of his comparisons to Cromwell. I wonder if Dickens was ill-informed, or simply was of a more Puritanical nature than I had previously supposed.

The overall effect of Dickens' approach is a combination of the best of Suetonius' insightful and epigrammatic analysis with the worst of Tacitus' wearisome detail. A Child's History of England is a mixed bag literarily, but I can think of no more entertaining way to brush up on British history.