Tom Holland vs undue cynicism

English chronicler Matthew Paris’s illustration of the war between Edmund Ironside and Cnut

Last week brought about one of the best podcast crossovers I’ve ever listened to, as Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook hosted Dan Carlin of Hardcore History on their show, The Rest is History. (Repetitious diction, I know, but if there seems to be too much history in that sentence, you will fail to grasp the appeal of these podcasts to their listeners.) Holland and Sandbrook grilled Carlin with ten “great” questions from history, ranging from what-ifs (e.g. What were the CSA’s longterm prospects had it won, or simply not lost, the Civil War?) to amusing would-you-rather questions.

Among the latter was this from Holland (at approx. 22:40 in the second episode): “Dan, you are the ruler of a Eurasian state in AD 1000. So, anywhere in Eurasia. Which one of the following inventions would you choose to have? And you can only have one: gunpowder, the printing press, or the germ theory of disease.”

A fun hypothetical discussion ensued, weighing the pros and cons of having anachronistic knowledge of any of the three, eventually leading to this exchange shortly before they moved on to the next question:

Sandbrook: Germ theory, I mean—I’m thinking about rulers in the year 1000, so, Cnut—
Carlin: Yes.
Sandbrook: Or Æthelred the Unready—
Carlin: Yeah.
Sandbrook: What are they—what are they going to do with the germ theory?
Carlin: Infect the Mercians, you know.
Holland: Well, well, um. Actually, the setting up of hospitals is, uh, caring for the sick is very important.
Sandbrook: I don’t see Cnut doing that, Tom.
Holland: Of course he did!
Sandbrook: Did he?
Holland: He went on pilgrimage to Rome.
Sandbrook: That was for his own purposes. That made—
Carlin: That’s a power move, right there.
Sandbrook: Right, exactly. That’s nothing to do with being kind to people who’ve got smallpox.
Holland: I think you’re being unduly cynical.

And this was after Holland had already pointed out that—contra Carlin’s suggestion that the printing press is necessarily a destabilizing technology that monarchs would only want to suppress—medieval rulers (his example is Alfred the Great) were great proponents and supporters of literacy.

It’s not much, but while I like and respect and enjoy all three of these guys’ work, this is why I love Tom Holland.

History post-Gibbon, post-Marx, and most especially post-Foucault is a deeply cynical discipline, and a certain kind of comfortably modern historian constantly projects that cynicism backward onto his subjects. To stick with the time period in question, pick up a book on Edward the Confessor and you’ll be hard pressed to follow his life story because the narrative will repeatedly bog down in parsing which chronicler is secretly supporting which side of whatever dispute. Further, these assertions about the biases of sources usually have to admit huge caveats later, as when source X, described as obsequiously toadying to Bishop Y, nevertheless strongly criticizes him for A, B, and C. These contradictions or exceptions seem never to raise doubts about whether this elaborate backroom politicking has been perceived accurately—or whether it’s there at all.

Surely it’s best to interpret historical figures’ words and actions as sincere at least some of the time. Cnut wrote a lengthy letter about his purposes for going to Rome, including negotiating ecclesiastical matters for the English church and repentance for his own sins. He must have meant some of that. Probably more than a modern person would guess. Compare my thoughts on modern historians’ judgment of what is and isn’t “likely” from last fall.

At any rate, bully for Tom Holland, and for Sandbrook and Carlin for being serious and enthusiastic students of history, even if they take theirs with a pinch more cynicism than is due. This two-part podcast series is fun, amusing, and wonderfully wide-ranging, and at several times also turns into a serious and thoughtful discussion of the historian’s art. It’s well worth your while.