LIONHEART'S AUTHOR'S NOTE–THE EDITED VERSION

I hit the road today for the Lionheart book tour, am looking forward to meeting some of you during the course of it.  Meanwhile, I thought it might be of interest to give a preview of my Author's Note.  The final version sets a record even for me–11 pages.  This is the beginning, with several spoilers deleted so as not to give away plot twists for readers not familiar with the events of the Third Crusade who prefer to learn about it by reading the book.

AUTHOR'S NOTE

Richard I was never one of my favorite kings, although my knowledge of him was admittedly superficial. I saw him as one-dimensional, drunk on blood and glory, arrogant, ruthless, a brilliant battle commander, but an ungrateful son and a careless king, and that is the Richard who made a brief appearance in Here in Dragons. I saw no reason not to accept the infamous verdict of the nineteenth century historian, William Stubbs, that he was "a bad son, a bad husband, a bad king."

So I was not expecting the Richard that I found when I began to research Devil's Brood. I would eventually do a blog called "The Surprising Lionheart," for after years of writing about real historical figures, I'd never before discovered such a disconnect between the man and the myth—at least not since I'd launched my writing career by telling the story of another king called Richard.

The more I learned about this Richard, the less I agreed with Dr Stubbs. I think Richard can fairly be acquitted of two of those three damning charges. I loved writing about Henry II. He was a great king—but a flawed father, and bears much of the blame for his estrangement from his sons. Certainly both Richard and Geoffrey had legitimate grievances, and it can be argued that they were driven to rebellion by Henry's monu-mental mistakes; see Devil's Brood. I bled for Henry, dying betrayed and brokenhearted at Chinon, but he brought so much of that grief upon himself.

Nor was Richard a bad king. Historians today give him higher marks than the Victorians did. Yes, he spent little time in England, but it was not the center of the uni-verse, was only part of the Angevin empire. After his return from his crusade and captivity in Germany, he found himself embroiled in a bitter war with the French king, and spent the last five years of his life defending his domains from Philippe Capet. The irony is that he has been criticized in our time for the very actions—his crusading and his military campaigns—that won him acclaim in his own world. By medieval standards, he was a successful king and historians now take that into consideration in passing judgment upon him.

He was, however, a bad husband, his infidelities notorious enough to warrant a lecture from the Bishop of Lincoln. Note that I say he was taken to task for adultery, not sodomy. I discussed the question of Richard's sexuality at some length in the Author's Note for Devil's Brood, will not repeat it here since this Author's Note is already going to rival a novella in length. Very briefly, the first suggestion that Richard preferred men to women as bedmates was not made until 1948, when it took root with surprising speed; I myself helped to perpetuate it in Here be Dragons, for I'd seen no need to do in-depth research for what was basically a walk-on role. But the actual "evidence" for this claim is very slight, indeed. I'll address this issue again in A King's Ransom, for that is where Richard will have his famous encounter with the hermit. The research I did for Devil's Brood inclined me to be skeptical, and I am even more so after finishing Lionheart, for I had not realized the intensity of the hatred between Richard and Philippe. The French chroniclers accused Richard of arranging the murder of Conrad of Montferrat, of poison-ing the Duke of Burgundy, of plotting to kill Philippe by sending Assassins to Paris, of being bribed by the "godless infidels" and betraying Christendom by allying himself with Saladin. So why would they not have accused him of sodomy, a mortal sin in the Middle Ages, and a charge that would have stained his honor and imperiled his soul? If they'd had such a lethal weapon at hand, we can be sure they'd have made use of it.

Berengaria has remained in history's shadows, a sad ghost, a neglected wife. She has not received the respect she deserves because her courage was the quiet kind; she was not a royal rebel like her formidable mother-in-law. She has been called a barren queen, unfairly blamed for the breakdown of her marriage. Since I knew of her unhappy marital history, I was somewhat surprised to discover that the marriage seems to have gotten off to a promising start. Because Richard shunned her company after he recovered his free-dom, I'd assumed this was true in the Holy Land, too. But Richard actually went to some trouble to have her with him when he could. It would have been easier and certainly safer to have had her stay in Acre instead of bringing her to Jaffa and, then, Latrun. We cannot be sure what caused their later estrangement, but I have some ideas; as a novelist, I have to, don't I? I think we can safely say, though, that the greater blame was Richard's.

What surprised me the most about Richard the man as opposed to Richard the myth? I already knew he was almost insanely reckless with his own safety, so it came as some-thing of a shock to learn that he was a cautious battle commander, that he took such care with the lives of his men. It is a fascinating paradox, and one which goes far toward explaining why he was loved by his soldiers, who seemed willing "to wade in blood to the pillars of Hercules if he so desired," in the words of the chronicler Richard of Devizes.

It also surprised me to learn that his health was not robust, that he was often ill, for that makes his battlefield exploits all the more remarkable. The Richard of legend smolders like a torch, glowering, dour, and dangerous. But the Richard who comes alive in the chronicles had a sardonic sense of humor, could be playful and unpredictable; Baha al-Din reported that he habitually employed a bantering conversational style, so it wasn't always easy to tell if he were serious or joking. And while I'd known he was well educated, able to jest in Latin and write poetry in two languages, I admit to being impressed when I discovered him quoting from Horace. Even his harshest critics acknowledge his military genius; he hasn't always been given enough credit, though, for his intelligence. The mythical Richard is usually portrayed as a gung-ho warrior who cared only for blood, battles, and what he could win at the point of a sword, but the real Richard was no stranger to diplomatic strategy; he was capable of subtlety, too, and could be just as devious as his wily sire.

But I was most amazed by his behavior in the Holy Land, by his willingness to deal with the Saracens as he would have dealt with Christian foes, via negotiations and even a marital alliance. As tragic as the massacre of the Acre garrison was, it was done for what he considered valid military reasons, not because of religious bias, as I'd once thought. He was not the religious zealot I'd expected. The man who was the first prince to take the cross refused to lay siege to Jerusalem, alarmed his own allies by his cordial relations with the Saracens, and although he believed they were infidels, denied God's Grace, he respected their courage. According to Baha al-Din, he formed friendships with some of Saladin's elite Mamluks and emirs, even knighting several of them. That was the last thing I'd have imagined—knighting his infidel enemies in the midst of a holy war?

I don't expect Lionheart to change the public perception of Richard I, any more than The Sunne in Splendour could compete with the Richard III of Shakespeare. But I do hope that my readers will agree with me that this Richard is much more complex and, therefore, more interesting, than the storied soldier-king. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so surprised by what my research revealed. As an Australian friend, Glenne Gilbert, once observed astutely, "There had to be reasons why he was Eleanor's favorite son."

October 4, 2011