Maybe that the deer, whose deer, is anbillain. Or it may not be. He'll write himself and then deny it. That was Susan Brickdon, author of Thomas Wyatt, the heart's forest.
From the point of view of the democracy, it is crucial that there is constant debate, constant engagement with not just contemporary issues but with what's happened in the past. And that was Christopher Duggan, author of Fascist Voices.
These two historians have both just been awarded the prestigious Wolves and History Prize. Hello and welcome to the History Extra Podcast. My name is Rob Atter and I'm the editor of BBC History magazine, which is the UK's best-selling History magazine. You can find it in all good news agents and on subscription. See History Extra.com forward slash subscribe hyphen today for subscription deals. And we have digital editions available for the iPad, the Kindle, Google Play and Kindle Fire. For details of our digital formats head to historyextra.com forward slash digital.
这两位历史学家都刚刚获得了备受推崇的“狼和历史奖”。欢迎来到历史Extra播客。我叫罗布·阿特尔,是英国最畅销的历史杂志BBC History magazine的编辑。你可以在所有好的新闻代理商那里找到它,也可以订阅。请前往HistoryExtra.com/subscribe-today获取订阅优惠。我们还提供适用于iPad、Kindle、Google Play和Kindle Fire的数字版。关于我们的数字版格式的详情,请登录historyextra.com/digital。
This week's podcast is a Wolves and History Prize special. First awarded in 1972, this accolade recognizes the best accessible history works of the year. And has gone on to become one of the most prestigious awards of its kind. Past winners include the likes of Anthony Beaver, Mary Beard and Ian Kershaw.
On Tuesday, two new names were added to the roster. Christopher Duggan and Susan Brickdon, who have scooped the latest awards for their books, Fascist Voices and Thomas Wyatt, The Hearts Forest.
Fascist Voices by Professor Christopher Duggan of the University of Reading tells the story of Mussolini's Italy through the voices of those who lived through the era. By analysing letters, diaries and police files, Duggan reveals a surprising level of enthusiasm for the fascist regime.
In Thomas Wyatt, The Hearts Forest Oxford Historian Susan Brickdon studies the life and work of the Tudor poet Thomas Wyatt, who was intimately involved with many of the key players of Henry VIII's reign. Famously, he was said to have been a lover of Amber Lynn, and this is one of the mysteries of Wyatt's life that Brickdon seeks to tackle in her biography.
I met up with Christopher and Susan recently to discuss their respective works and to discover the secrets of writing award-winning popular history.
最近,我和克里斯托弗和苏珊相遇,这是为了讨论他们各自的作品和发现写获得奖项的流行历史的秘密。
Before we hear the conversations, here is a quick word from Paul Ramsbottom, Chief Executive of the Wilson Foundation. The intention is that it will shine a light on two books that are exceptional works of history and that have a real resonance with a wider audience. The intention from our perspective is really to highlight that type of work. We hope that it comes as a real morale boost for the winners as an encouragement to other people writing for a wider audience, albeit very much within a scholarly context.
I guess at a more parochial level, we hope clearly that it will have an impact on the sales of the books that it will encourage people to go and to read these wonderful winners. I'm always conscious that the timing comes out at the beginning of summer holiday period. I have these rather nice images of people heading off to beaches in the Mediterranean with a copy of each book and each arm. That was Paul Ramsbottom.
And now on to our panel discussion. I should mention that some of the topics we covered were suggested by Richard Evans, a member of the Judging Panel.
You've both been awarded a prize for writing history that the general public can enjoy. What is it you think that makes a piece of history accessible?
你们两个因为写下了一篇通俗易懂的历史文章而获得了奖项。你们认为什么因素使得一篇历史文章易于理解呢?
Well, I think it's got to have people in it, it's got to have stories. And I guess there are certain subject areas that resonate with people.
我认为一部好电影必须要有人,要有故事。我想特定的题材会触动人们的共鸣。
The tutors obviously has huge pop-up appeal at the moment through novels, through films. And obviously through works like Susan's book on Thomas White. So I think you were trying to choose a subject area.
So I think it's a question of trying to find a general area that's going to resonate. And then have an interesting angle on it. And one that normally has some kind of personal dimension, whether it's a biography, in the case of my book, using Dares ordinary people to engage the general readers, as well as to shed light on, on a period.
Yes, and in Christopher's book The Voices, the fascist voices are what lead you in. And I think as historians, we're trying to evoke the past and trying to take, trying to imaginatively recreate the past and to take our readers into this world, which is known or less known to them and to introduce them to characters.
And to ask the question, were they like us? And sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes really not. Yes, it's true. And I think you're inviting your reader to, in a sense, to put yourself in the shoes of your characters and say, as you're right, say, Susan, I mean, would I have acted differently? What would I have done? How much is this a different world from the world I experienced? How much is it similar?
And very often it is, there are elements of similarity, elements of difference. But I think it is, as Susan says, this transporting the reader to a different place, a different time, and to try and reconstruct using one's imagination, as well as one's sources, a different world. A different world in which people can probably see themselves, as well as see differences. I think that's important.
And, you know, books that have, history books have, have, have a great success, can often be on quite, you know, remote countries or remote periods. I've been very successful books, looking at, you know, China and the Far East in, in, so earlier periods or whatever. So, it's a question I think of trying to recreate as fully as possible the emotional moral, intellectual texture of a period.
And that can, and then, when you've got people there, you can draw your reader in, I think, and hopefully get them emotionally engaged in the subject. And I think we're trying to, there is such a thing as a historian's truth. We're really trying to discover what happened. We're seeing history, I suppose, often sequentially. We're trying, we're, we're, we're, I mean, history is a story and it, and to present it, thus is not to do, to reduce the past, but to make it real and to do that and to present a story you've got to be writing in a way that one sentence follows from another and that you entice your reader to read on.
It's, I mean, the best historians have always tried to, tried to do that. So, do you feel successful popular history works more because of the way it's written than say the topic that's been chosen or perhaps the sources that have been used? Is it really the writing that really makes work of history come alive? Yes, I think so because I mean, you could write a, a, an article of rebarbitive pedimentry on the most interesting historical subject, the rise of Mussolini or the death of Ann Bolin.
But you could also write something fascinating about something that wasn't, you know, in itself appealing. I mean, you know, to tell the story of a Netsuke like Edmund de Valdas isn't an obvious, isn't an obvious blow, but it's a story of extraordinary attraction. And it's that different angle, as you said, the here the Ambrace was just so unusual that you got in through the Netsuke and it opened up a whole world of late 19th century France and, you know, all the issues that came up with the Jewish question late 19th century and early 20th century as well. So it's having this sort of door, interesting door that opens and I mean, you also, it is the writing in a sense, you know, the prose has got to be as engaging and vivid as possible.
But I think probably more important is just having this rather different angle and being able to open up this, this, this extraordinary world. And sometimes just the range of sources can itself be intriguing and one thing that, you know, I was, was an aura of in Susan's book is just how in what detail you could reconstruct events in 1527 or whatever it is through traces. And that itself was fascinating just thinking that my god, in 400 and 500 years ago, we can, you know, we can reconstruct a daily basis, a horse ride going cross through France to back to London. It's really quite exciting. So there's something about the source themselves that can be quite intriguing, I think, and Kezmibok, I was using Dares, but also secret police reports and so on. I guess that must have a certain free soul for the reader as well, which can make it attractive.
You also, I mean, there's the kind of history where you continue a debate within the academy. So you say, dog and says, but I say and then, you know, and somebody else says. And that in a way is to is is I think that belongs to the historical journal and that's the world of the academy for the for history to be accessible. I think you have to have two parallel stories in a way. There's the story above the line, which is after what given it in the decline and fall of the text for his readers. And then below the line are the footnotes and those of the historians or the scholars who really want to follow the tracks and see the proofs.
But if once you start introducing the sources very palpably into the text or the names of your fellow scholars upon whom you rely tremendously, then you break the spell in a way and it's no longer, you're no longer simply in the 16th century or in the 21st century. So that's why you choose as your writing something. You always find your own your voice that tries to fit the story that you're telling. I mean, given describes the voice that he has to find to the historian of the Roman of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire has to find.
And all of us, you know, not not to compare ourselves to given, but we have to find a voice that suits the story we're telling, I suppose.
我们中的每个人,你知道的,不要把自己与别人比较,但我们必须找到适合我们讲述故事的声音,我想。
Do you too, when you're writing, do you have a picture of the reader in mind at all?
在写作时,你是否也会想象出一个读者的形象呢?这样做会让你更加明确目标。
Yes, I do. I imagine my friends or I imagine my undergraduates or the, because after all, we're teachers before where, I mean, that's how he's been most of our time. The writing is done in vacations or in time stolen from other things that we should be doing. So it's the, I imagine the undergraduates, particularly ones who study, in particular courses with me.
Yes, I think you always have readers in mind and sometimes a little bit schizophrenic because you're aware of your academic colleagues hovering over your shoulder and there as Susan said, you make sure that your footnets indicate that you, you know, too know your sources and you have read the latest articles or latest books on your subject. But then you've got, you know, the so-called general reader, perhaps, hovering over your shoulder.
And then, yes, students, I mean, my last but not the one I've, this one, of Ash's voices, but I was in slightly sort of caught between wanting to engage with general reader, somebody who might be going to Italy on holiday for a couple of weeks and wants to have general access to the world. But at the same time, thinking of undergraduate students and what they might like from something with slightly more of a textbook feel.
So in case of that book, which I published five, six years ago, I sort of hovered between a sort of general narrative that might engage the general reader and something that might be used to undergraduates as well. So yes, you're always aware of your audience, I think.
And, yes, certainly with this book, Ash's voices, you know, I was conscious of addressing, you know, a major area of historical debate among professional historians, the degree to which there was consensus or support for the fashion regime in Italy more broadly, support for fascism in Europe. You have the same time wanting partly because it's not, you know, Italian fascism and not so well known as say, Nazism, to try and draw in a bigger public and say, look, there's a lot that we can learn from Italy. You know, please read this book and start thinking about about, about fashion Italy and don't just focus all the time on Nazi German as a lot to be learned from other countries as well.
Are there any potential pitfalls when writing this kind of popular history that there are a danger of sacrificing kind of the academic integrity or not really dealing with the scholarship properly? Is it hard to balance the two sides to the work?
I think if you've got a publisher that lets you have as many footnotes as you like, then you can have two books really. You can have your scholarly book below the line and then you can have your book that isn't so robust if I suppose that people might want to read and find, you know, the world that you're painting for them. But I suppose that within the academy people might despise you for writing in a more popular way.
And, well, you know, that's their problem as far as I can stand because I think historians have got a duty really to make important subjects known. I mean, I wouldn't make great claims for writing about Thomas Watt as containing, you know, huge truths in modern politics. But to read Christopher Dougins' book and to think about the possibilities of, you know, the resurgence of right wing groups within Europe or to think about the silences there are in Italy about the past. It's really to see that duty, I think.
Yeah, I think I'm the issue of whether you feel compromised. I mean, it is a balancing act all the time when I think as Susan says, you can use things like footnotes or in my case, I, you know, is an introduction. I try to address the issues which the book touched on in terms of academic debates, the extent to which fascism was was not a political religion or whatever. So you can be clear that you're conscious of these things.
But I think as Susan says, I mean, the important thing in a way with so many topics is to try and generate debate. I mean, you know, as I can imagine, we know there are no different advances. There are always debates and the debates keep on, not, not. But the important thing is to keep those debates alive and to keep people questioning, thinking, challenging and so on.
I think the one thing I wanted to do in my book is to say, well, this is what the evidence suggests. I can't tell you definitively the degree to which, you know, 40, 45 million Italians really bought into fascism or really supported muslims. There's no way you can come up objectively and answer that. Here's some evidence. Here are various, here are private letters, here are secret police reports, which indicate that a lot of people were emotionally really engaged with fascism, really engaged, certainly with Mussolini. I can't tell you exactly what that says about levels of consent or support. But let's at least start thinking about it, discussing it, and get over silences because one of the, you said there's so many areas of history.
This goes, I guess, for areas of British history, but certainly for large areas of European history, the 20th century, where there has been a lot of silence. I'm just finishing Paul Preston's great book on the Spanish Holocaust. Clearly, there has been a huge amount of silence in Spain, but exactly the level of brutality and killings in 936 to 37 in Spain. Paul gives a figure of, because on 200,000 people killed. Clearly, the way he's writing this book is to say, well, look, we've got to confront this, because it has not been confronted. What we've got in Spain is rather than nine images of Franco, somebody who restored order, ultimately 96th is gay, Spain, the foundations for its economic recovery, that's a little bit more suspect now. But there's been silence, and I think one of the things that Susan and I and other historians want to reach out with Claude Pope would like to do is just to open up areas and not be fully discussed, fully thought about, and just get people talking.
There are no final answers, but there is debate. That's what we want to encourage. Do you both feel that it's important that the academic historians, like yourself, get involved in the popular history market and don't just leave it to the kind of these little amateur historians and historical novelists and people like that, but you have a voice, because there is a lot of popular history being written by non-academics. Is it important to have you, people like you in the mix as well?
Well, I suppose the Tudor period is the one that is a period of great glamour and destiny and lots of people want to write about it. And it also has a historical novel of genius writing about it, which is Hillary Mantell. And I think that her powers of imagination and her sort of searing intelligence are just extraordinary. And I think actually that she wrote the best two pages that have been written or will be written about Thomas Wyatt. And I'm glad that I read, bring up the bodies after I finish my book, but it's still true that we, historians who are out there on the front line in the archives need to be writing our histories too. It gives them more material, but our truths are different from theirs in a way where I think that Hillary Mantell is looking for and finding historical truth, but in a different way than I am. I don't reveal people who are writing a kind of what I might call faction, which is halfway between true history and fiction, which is a kind of easy, facile enterprise, which is a kind of historical path that doesn't have to do with truth or hard thinking.
I think it's absolutely true and I agree with you on that. I think historical novels are one thing and there's a kind of truth you can get from those, which is wonderful. I think there is a danger with historical books that claim to be serious history, but which are not written from a standpoint or with a rigor that the profession storeans would prove of. I think they can be dangerous because the reader will pick those up at a book shop or at a port of whatever it is. The blurb on the book will say the truth about, I don't know, muscling is execution, exposed, whatever it is. They'll read it and say, my God, this is history, this is the truth. And yet, as historians were acutely aware that this is just an absolute nonsense and certain cases of my subject in Italian fascism or in the Italian history, in one Italian history in general, I'm aware, particularly perhaps in Italy, there's a whole huge industry of writings by people who are not professional historians, but who write books which claim to be history, which have huge readership. And they really worry me.
I mean, just mentioned the execution of muscling. There are so many books backed up then by so-called documentaries on television, in Italy, which claim that muscling was assassinating the orders of Winston Churchill or whatever it is. You know, without any serious evidence for this and those kind of works can do, I think, very serious damage. And I think we have a duetisis story to try and counter that by being absolutely clear about sources, showing people how you approach truth in a word of commerce, I mean, the far-smart established truth, but by being as faithful as possible to the sources. And with a degree of accessibility that allows you then, hopefully to try and counter some of the more dangerous and corrosive material that is out there.
There are some historians, and I suppose people in many fields who feel a little bit snobby about the idea of popular history, but you think that what you're saying shows the importance of academics engaging with popular history because otherwise the public will be at the mercy of amateurs and charlatans. And so, if academic historians were to just be in their ivory tower, it could be quite dangerous to the public understanding overall.
Well, I think there is a place for really quite difficult history just written in a very bleak way conducted in professional journals. And some historians are writing the sorts of history that fits best in that kind of medium. But for those of us who are writing about very exciting periods, it doesn't seem to me that there's any problem about writing for a general audience. I mean, historians, you know, words are our weapon in a way. And if you can't write appealingly, then your sword is forever un-sheathed, your argument is not properly made. I mean, it's a very complicated matter often, but it needn't be explained in terms of obfuscation. You can write complex truths in a appealing way, I think.
I think that's very important. I think it's also something that British historiography has been very good at for many decades and even centuries. And I think of the situation in Italy, which is also the country that I work on primarily. And in Italy, it is very, very rare indeed to find a professional historian who can engage or indeed wants to engage the general public. There is a very strong sense I find in Italy that if you are accessible, then sometimes somehow you're not a serious historian, which may be one reason why, and I'm very grateful for this, that British historians do get widely translated in Italy and can reach relatively broad public.
But I think it is hugely important and the historians can reach broad publics, I mean, that sounds sort of too pompous on this, but from the point of view of democracy, it is crucial important that there is constant debate, constant engagement with not just contemporary issues, but with what's happened in the past, particularly with things like fascism, that we are open, we will discuss these, whereas I see in Italy that the inability, very often, of historians to engage with a general part of broader public on serious issues like fascism, Mussolini, so on leaves, as I said earlier, the way open to pseudo-historians or to sensationalizing documentary makers to present a very distorted picture of the past, which can have very dangerous implications.
So I think historians do have, I mean, duty sounds a little bit serious, but I think there is a real role within democracy, it's part of the broader debate to make sure that wider public as possible is brought into discussions about the past, as well as the present. It's part of the wider debate about how history should be taught in schools after all, and it's a matter of great controversy, and I think there are politicians and people who are in charge of education, who really do recognize that without a knowledge of history that you're forever a child, that you are condemned to repeat the errors of the past, and if you don't know the past.
I know I think that perhaps it does sound rather portentous, but I think that historians do have a humane influence, especially in a liberal democracy, I think in America too, there's a tradition of writing history in a popular way, which matters, and of course the audience there is enormous. Now I realize you've both written on very different subjects clearly, but do you see any parallels between your two books?
Well, both engage with real people and try to bring a life alive world they lived in. I think one thing that I found very striking about Susan's book was the geographical breadth, and what I really enjoyed about, one of the many other things, is the way that the Reformation in England was brought into a European context, in the way that the Court of Energy Eighth and people like Wyatt were part of this broader European culture, and also European politics, the extent to which, you know, energy eight was desperately trying to lever himself into position of influence in Europe generally, and ultimately I suppose rather failing, which I guess is the sign of things to come to the next four centuries, also in terms of relation with Europe.
And I think that European dimension to Susan's book, and the fact that my book is about Italy, does reflect, I think a very important strand in British historography, that there is such a strong tradition in this country of books being written about how the country is, what it looks back through the list of prize winners for the Wilson Prize. In the last 40 or so years, huge number of these books have been about non-British subjects, books that deal with America or aspects of European countries, or the Far East, or India, whatever it is. And I think that is something that is very, very significant about British historography, something a little bit under threat, I mean, a lot of debate about this last of 10, 15, 20 years, about the problem of languages. But you know, Susan had to look at archives in Spain and Italy, Germany, without language skills, we're going to lose that ability, and the danger is might lose something very distinctive about British historography.
And I suppose one of the things that links the books to is the sense of the voices of people who are making very hard moral choices and times of great uncertainty and danger, and looking for leadership, or looking for a sense of a politics to be trusted and a sense of the truth. And a sense of, you know, a nation whose path is, you know, there are certain paths to be taken. So those things might link them as well.
Something that I was thinking in a very clear, quite a loose sense is you've, in both sense, you've got people trying to deal with quite a sort of difficult regime. You've got Henry VIII, sort of a very hard to gauge how he's going to react to things and also quite a dangerous man to cross, and similarly with Mussolini, if you fell on the wrong side of it, which was quite easy to do, you could come across quite easily. Are there any parallels between the Tudor Court and the Fascist Court, so to speak? Was that actually too far?
Well, I think there probably are in terms of, I mean, both the Felisol authoritarian regimes, and I think it's interesting to see how people respond emotionally psychologically to these kinds of regimes, and wanting to restruct me looking at the diaries of ordinary people in Fascitly or their letters. Is the willingness to suspend critical judgment about the leader, and the desire to want to believe the leader is somebody who is on your side who's going to help you to be good and so on, and the amount of emotional psychological investment in that, and the way in which you, you know, you put aside critical judgment. I was very struck with Susan's book when, looking at Cromwell's fall in 1540, how it seems so brutally unjust, and yet Cromwell doesn't say to Henry how dare you do this, he says, I'm sorry I betrayed you, or what I mean.
And, you know, I find in the case of Mussolini how extraordinary it is that even highly intelligent people who conceive that the racial laws, the alliance with Germany and the entry into the war in 1940 is, you know, inhumane and just wrong. Yet at the same time they do not want to lose their faith in Mussolini. I mean, one very struck by an extraordinary of a very intelligent student, physics student from the University of part of her, who, you know, one moment can say, you know, why is most introduced in racial laws, they're iniquitous.
Why are my professors from university being sad, just because they're Jews? The next minute she can record in a diary has sensitive exhilaration going to hear Mussolini give a speech and be proud of herself that she still has faith in the duce. So it's something very, I think both books say something very curious about how people deal with power, particularly strong power. And what you do, I mean, we all imagine that faced with horrendous choices like in Third Reich or whatever, we'd all say, no, we wouldn't, you know, send the Jews to gas chambers. But you become aware that when you're faced with power that you play very curious games emotionally psychologically with yourself, in order perhaps just to keep on living and to think that you're making the right choices.
And I suppose even at the court of a tyrant who are still hoping that by your counsel you might try and speak truth to power, but of course that's much harder to do than to talk about. And I suppose my book is about people who are quite close to this, who are very close to this problem there, making these moral choices that at court and trying to make sure that they come, you know, they come out as clean as they went into the world. But if that doesn't happen, that they're tainted, everybody who lives, who countenance is those regimes is tainted by them.
And in both books, you have, well, particularly in yours, but also in yours, Christopher, you have a central character who is still quite an elusive character. Do you feel that you're able to get to the bottom of them, finally after writing these books? I think sometimes in my dark moments, I thought that there was a sort of wire shaped hole in the middle of my book and that I could evoke the world around him. I could hold up his poetry. It's a kind of mirror of his times, but that he was evading me.
They said at the time of wire that he speaks fine words until he's more sure of you. And I think that sometimes I felt I was getting the fine words. But this is a man who in his letter to his son, a very revealing letter to his son at a time, perhaps when he thought he might not see him again, talks, talks to his son, Thomas about gathering himself to have a gathered self. To know himself. But with Thomas Wyatt, the elder, I found so many selves, there were, you know, there was Wyatt, the Christian Stoic, and then Wyatt, the murderer, and then Wyatt, the sort of trolling Wyatt, who'd write courtly verse and Wyatt, who was also the paraphrase of the seven penitential Psalms. And he's a courtier who says that he's not going to flatter and then we find him flattering. And so he's a figure of such complexity that he was always elusive. And I think I, if I left him still elusive, then I didn't too much to reduce him. But there's, so I present these selves. But that I guess is the reality of all human beings, the end of the sound to pompous. But there are so many different layers.
And I think, you know, one thing I found was doing research in Mussolini, but also I think looking at responses of ordinary people to Mussolini, I mean, everyone is is, is multi-led and, and, you know, I said at one point, I think that I could well imagine somebody in it, writing a fusive letter to me. And I said, I'm a fusive letter to Mussolini saying, duché, I believe in you, you are my god on earth, I love you, et cetera, et cetera. And if you ask later in a bar over a drink with a colleague saying, oh, Mussolini is an idiot, isn't he, and so on. So, we all do that in various ways, where we're also contradictory and complex.
And certainly in the case of Mussolini. And then, you know, when you see somebody who was playing so many different roles in the end, in a way that I don't think he could disengage the actor from from the real self, you somebody who, you know, saw himself always whether in front of large crowds or in front of individuals as playing roles, and even with, we recently got access to the diaries of his, as longstanding and famous on a tourist mistress, Clarata Patacci, who record in huge details, exactly what Mussolini said on a day-to-day basis to her. But you get this strong impression there that he is playing a part as much as any other time. He is, you know, if that's what he's sort of 25, 30 years old, and her playing sort of, you know, the great man in front of her and boasting and showing off and so on, so forth. But that in the end is much part of him, a real part of him, as any central, you know, truth, if you like, Mussolini, let's say, like so many people is just playing lots and lots of different roles.
And I think that's something that, you know, works like Susan's or Pat's mind, well, brings out that in the end we are all very, very complex creatures and we play different roles and often contradict ourselves. And there's, I mean, there's some interesting things in the sources that you both use. I mean, just in Christopher's case, you've got these lecious and diaries that it's always hard to know how much he's really represents someone's true feelings. True feelings and then with Thomas White, you've got all his poetry. But again, it's how much is that the real wife and how much is that an image he wants to project for himself, even when these things are written in private, it's still, is it possible to get a feeling of how accurate or how true these things really are or is it just an impossible quest.
It's very, very difficult. In one point I made about using diaries is, is, you know, why are people writing diaries? What kind of persona they're trying to project? Because, I mean, sometimes people write a diary just to offload their feelings in a way that is that's the most sort of authentic and raw indication of what they're actually thinking or feeling. But very often people write diaries for other reasons. They made it thinking of posterity, they made it thinking of how we published lots of diaries.
I came across four soldiers in second world war or soldiers serving in Ethiopia in 35, 36, they were keeping them before that girlfriend or that wife back home to show what a good soldier or good fascist they had been. Often a reason why they're writing it and you just simply got to think when you read the diary, what is the motive for this diary and therefore what kind of image is the person trying to project of himself or herself. But in the end, if someone's trying to, and I found this when looking at diaries, for example, of school teachers, I was thinking, well, these are so apparently such just statements about how wonderful each they are and how good they are as fascists.
And maybe that they're sort of keeping these diaries which might possibly have shown to a head teacher or somebody to show how well they behave. But in a sense, that is as much part of their real person, the fact they want to project themselves as good fascists. So you can say, well, even if they didn't necessarily sign up 100% for the kind of things they're saying about mostly in your fashion, the fact they want to project that to superior or whatever it is says quite a lot about their commitment to the regime, even it doesn't actually reflect necessarily their full inner feelings. So, but I think you've just got to be very critical of your sources and I guess it's the same with poetry, you've just got to sort of think, you know, why is some writing to John points or not writing John points or whatever it is.
Yes. I mean poets are alchemists, they can do anything, they range in the zodiac of their wit, that's what Philip Sidney says. But they, and a poet's truth is not the same as the truth for the rest of us. They're all sorts of constraints and inspirations for a poet that make the source quite different from anything else. A poet like Wyatt is constrained by his own nature, is constrained by his times, he's writing at a time when under the Trees and Act words are now Trees and so his life nearly ends on the difference on a distinction between syllables.
And he says that the distinction between a difference of syllables make of the great difference, but he's also thinking of form and its form that's his inspiration and he's imitating great poets, especially Patrach. So he must write with the compression to follow the form of the sonnet. So and he's trying to imitate, he's imitating Horace or he's imitating Alamani who's imitating Areosto imitating Horace. You've got something, the poem is a palimpsest and what you can never do is to try and ransack it for a certain time, a certain place, a certain person. That really is to produce the poet.
So it may be that the hind that he describes is who so list to hunt, it may be that the deer who is deer is Ann Bolin or it may not be. He'll write himself and then deny it. So and he'll speak and keep silent and you have to follow him through all those silences until you find a voice or you find a moment where you can be more certain of him I suppose. But you've got to track him and be cautious and stealthy.
And how far did you feel you had to be true to the original sources because something that Richard actually wanted to ask you to do was about keeping maintaining the original spellings of Thomas White because he wondered whether about the choice you made between whether to make it a bit easier for a modern reader but then also want to keep to the original. Why did you decide to stick with the original spellings in the end?
That was really difficult because I knew that if I didn't put Wyatt in his original spelling he sounds different if you put him in English in in our modern English. You don't get quite the players on words if you put punctuation in you you don't find the truth sort of hovering between the lines it's it that was one of the hardest decisions but this is a man who is going to go to the block on the difference between whether he said the king is left out of the cast.
Or cast out of the cast are asked so when he says that it make it the difference to the truth a syllable he really knows and he means it and so I didn't think that I could be one of those editors who edited Wyatt and put in a syllable here to make the rhyme smoother or to put him into modern English.
I think once you once you get the hang of it once you start reading him aloud as he would have been then it becomes much easier and I made all sorts of other compromised decisions I suppose because Wyatt's friends are not in their original orthography and Wyatt's diplomatic letters are not in his writing and his spelling but the poetry I had to stay far I think but it was difficult.
I think it works very very well I thought it was an excellent choice to make because you know gain is given at this point about taking your reader back to an earlier period which is different and yet which has close resemblances in many many ways and I think the archaic English rather does that you get you you think well this is England it is my country whatever it is but it is slightly different and also as just a sort of I find it sort of fast just try and sort of to have to read and reread the poems to actually get used to it so it came like a sort of not quite a crossbar possible something but but intriguing part of the excitement of the book getting back into the world of 16th century to have to slightly you know wrestle to begin with at least with this rather unfamiliar English so I think it worked very well it would have been alienating I think to have translated the 16th century English into modern English because then you had the modern voice intruding into the recreation which is what the book is trying to recreation of that world of the 16th century.
You know in my case I had a fun and no choice but to translate but to translate you know the information used to translate in a way that reflected the tone of the Italian as much as possible so. But some of your diaries were almost impossible to penetrate weren't they I can't remember the name of the man who wrote on his olivetti. Oh yes. That was by word separating every word of the semi-cure and he was only marginally literate really but he wanted his story to be told I mean that was very and you know night after night he was writing his account that the truth be told that that is difficult when you've got someone who's writing in the case of in jazz or abitou you mentioned he's writing a very curious town and basically diocesan in dialect and it was going to be almost impossible English to bring across that sort of distance from from from from Italian.
But yeah in the case of diaries of children or whatever you try little bit to replicate the sort of the sort of childish feel of the writing but the challenge was very different from from from one of the Susan based I think I mean no choice but I think to translate. But I think in a way you were making it easier easier easier for us than and doing us a tremendous favor but I mean even now if you go to Naples the language of the streets is not something that the rest you know even those who can speak a bit of Italian can understand and so each of those voices that you were presenting for us were speaking.
A language that would be hardly recognized as standard Italian because standard Italian is the creation of the television I suppose isn't it important well yes I mean I think it's only 1970s the majority of the town of populations but Italian as their first language is opposed to to dialect so yes a lot of these people who were who are writing diaries or letters were struggling with with with Italian so. Yes I'm it's important to sort of be able to to to bring out their voices and often these voices which which in it as well and not easy to be heard precisely because as you suggest the language is is not always one that the Montalens would be very familiar with.
And something else that I suppose applies to both your books is they both take on some quite big questions of their period I suppose you've got the whole question of Anne Berlin and Thomas why whether or not they they were a couple and then. This is quite different but in your book Christopher you've got did the Italian people really support Mussolini there's a two quite big topics a lot of other people have addressed do you feel that your books have settled these matters now or is it still up for debate.
Well, I think I haven't settled really the matter of Anne Berlin and Thomas why I think that there's a will among anybody who sees their fascination now and anybody then who saw their fascination they were they were they left other people behind that court or they people saw their difference there was a sort of inevitability that these people of a group of people.
These people of a kind of glamour and destiny would get together and there you know we can imagine them romping in the country side in their childhood I think it wasn't like that there was so much to prevent them actually having you know a romance that was consummated by its marriage you know the court constantly on the watch for this kind of thing that it's very it's very it's hard to tell.
It's hard to tell us it it seems slightly preroyant to tell of course it does matter because why it is a great poet because Anne Berlin is a queen and she's a mother of a greater queen and so these are not matters without moment but I think after 500 years there are things that you can't tell be wise and not to speculate.
In the case of fascism the you know the debates will go on on on about about this and we've seen the case of the third Reich Nazi Germany has a penchant swings backwards and forwards between people saying that there was a huge level of support it was what execution and so on then the penchant swings back again towards saying that well there's a huge amount of coercion rooms emphasize the coercion and extent which people were forced to to conform and to obey and then more recent I think the penchant swing back again.
The case of Germany to saying well actually the distinction between you know good Germans bad Nazis not one that we can make and in fact you know many more people than we perhaps imagined really bought into the broader agenda of Nazis and even if they didn't actually support the Nazi party.
In the case of Italy the said and again to be a definitive answer on this one but I think what I hope I've opened up is some new avenues for thinking about fascism. The relationship with Catholic Church I think is one that has not been faced up to for various understandable reasons as squarely as it should have been but I'm very conscious of the extent to which right from the start that fascism's authority innately owed a huge amount to the really quite strong support almost in the very beginning of senior clergy innitly not just in 1929 when the conciliation took place between the fascist state and the Vatican.
But long before that and you know if you think that for the Catholic Church liberalism almost as much as socialism as an enemy to be fought you begin to understand the extent to which fascism for all its faults as far as the Catholic Church concerned with its paganism and violence could nevertheless seem a much better bet both and socialism and also liberalism and it that gave fascism a huge huge advantage and because liberal state had never had the fuller of the fascism.
So that's something to be really emphasized and I think gain you know thinking of Paul Presidents book on on Spain but also thinking about fascism as South America it's something that we need to think about rather more than we have done and the importance of the relationship between fascism and the backing of the the Catholic Church.
The other thing I think I would try and do in the book was to place the period 1922 to 45 in a broader context because very easy just to isolate the period and say it was all about you know class or whatever it is but if you think that most of the people who you're alive in 1922 would have their memories shaped by the 30 40 50 years that gone before then you can only understand fashion in the context of all the disappointments the frustrations the the you know the anxieties that have gone before disappointments about the first world war yet the dislike of liberalism the corruption of parliament the fragmentation in parliament all these things help then shaped how people approach fascism and even they didn't like aspects and mostly any all the fascist party.
Nevertheless they could really embrace the kind of hopes the aspirations that fascism seemed to be engendering in terms of national regeneration respect finally in Europe having a united nation the sense you know the past been fragmented now where one people were common death all these things I think helped to give people a sense that they could support fascism. And even if they didn't like aspects the corruption the party aspects of more salini so I think what I hope is is to try and open the debate out and suggest more broadly why these regimes fascism Italy or perhaps in an artism Germany or Francois they might be attractive but you know you can't settle the debate we can do is raise questions.
The most chilling part of the book though of your book is the epilogue I think where the entries that are made it whereas it is a bit better. Pradapio where most of the people are still writing in 2010 to the duchy and thinking of the great man and they did exactly mention the third Rome now but they talk they they pine for him. There's a lot of nostalgia I think and again you can't quantify this but it's true that you're getting dozens sometimes hundreds and occasionally on the big anniversaries 1000 plus people writing sign the the commemoration book in front of Muslims to writing quite often lengthy inscriptions of praise to him.
And yes it it says something about the way in which if the past is not confronted squarely how it is very easy for myths to to remain powerful. And the case of Italy today we were just seeing the moment the art of mass that's been taken place in Italy since the elections in February in a better form of government recently the failure to elect a new president they've had to go back to poor Georgian or Patudana who lastly wanted age 86 and 87 where he's 788. But it's become president yet again but he's had to and you know there's widespread feeling it lead that and it is reminiscent of what was happening back in you know in the 100 years ago that this system was not working it's parties that are self serving is fragmented and so on so forth and you know it's very easy in those circumstances people to think are well things were better when we had you know one strong man who had a you know they were a unit as a nation and so on so. You know how easy it is for myths to be resurrected and in that context how easy it is for people to bat away any criticism and to say that the people who.
Of criticized most of the is also quite a lot of the last 20 years is to argue that anti fascism and the criticisms of fashion mostly have been inspired by the comments but you can then say well comments discredited therefore anti fashion discredited and so you know you can you can sort of bat away any criticisms in order to protect what you want i sort of you know mythic image of a great man who might offer hope. And I suppose that they're also it's with the Tudor period a quite strong myths developed in the so the popular imagination about that I mean I guess it might be as dangerous as the of the fascist period but it still is an issue of history that they do need to confront some of these myths.
Yes I think that the the hold of the Tudor Monics especially Henry VIII and Elizabeth on the popular imagination is extraordinary and the a kind of mythic quality surrounding them I think I mean fortunately Henry now is seen more as a monster than as a sort of founding father but he I mean here here is a man who. Destroyed so much and there are those who read it's hard to think of the reformation I think as other than a tragedy in some ways for those who lived through it there are gains and losses I suppose but in the way that it was done.
The pain remains Elizabeth who was quite controversial at her time in her time I suppose I mean remains as a you know it would how it would be hard to gain say this the real achievement of her reign. That was Christopher Duggan and Susan Brickdon in conversation.
I'd like to thank Paul Rams bottom and the Wolfson foundation for lending us their premises to record the interviews. If you'd like to know more about the Wolfson history prize please visit wolfson.org.uk forward slash history hyphen prize both Christopher and Susa's books are of course on sale now.
Fascist voices and intimate history of Mussolini's Italy is published by bodily head while Thomas Wyatt the hearts forest is published by favor. We'll be reporting on the Wolfson history prize in our June issue which goes on sale in a couple of weeks.
In the meantime you can still get hold of our May edition where we have articles on second world war misconceptions the damn busters raid, Roman gladiators royal clothing King John and the legacy of Margaret that. Our may issue is available in all good news agents and digitally and as I mentioned earlier you can find more information on our digital editions at history extra dot com forward slash digital.
Well that's almost all for this week do get in touch with your views on podcast at history extra dot com and we may well read out some of your messages in future episodes. You can also contact us on Twitter we're at history extra and on facebook dot com forward slash history extra.
这周就快结束了,如果对我们的播客有任何看法,请联系我们,可以发邮件到 history extra dot com,并且我们可能会在未来的一些节目中朗读你的留言。你也可以在 Twitter 上联系我们,我们的账号是 history extra,或者在 Facebook 上通过 forward slash history extra 与我们联系。
Next time we'll be back in Bristol discussing King John's battles with the barons and speaking to a survivor of the holocaust. It's an episode that you won't want to miss.