I took a class on Shakespeare's History plays as an undergrad. On the first day of class, Dr. Willis made us place one hand on our Bevington and raise the other, repeating, “I will not learn history from Shakespeare.” The same can be said about Stephen Clarke’s 1000 Years of Annoying the French. Yet, like Shakespeare’s history plays, Clarke’s book should definitely be read nonetheless.
I struggle at times to explain Franco-English relations to my students, often referring to them as the “Tom and Jerry of Europe.” (And I find this reference becoming more and more out of date with each new semester.) Clarke’s book illuminates some particulars that will prove helpful in my future endeavors to explain the relationship.
The title says it all: 1000 Years of Annoying the French starts with William the Conqueror (a French-hating Norman, according to Clarke) and runs up to the War in Iraq, focusing on how the British aggravate the French and vice versa. The book is certainly one sided, which readers are made aware of from page one, so citing it as a serious reference wouldn’t fly. But it makes reading “history” entertaining (I read all 645 pages in my “off time” in a week).
Clarke’s attention to detail and biting commentary made me laugh out loud (on the tube, at times, as I hid the cover as not to annoy any Frenchmen myself). While I know the facts are being presented through a Union Jack-colored lens, I find myself wanting to learn more about the events in the book.
Some of the notable points he brings up that I didn’t know about, and that I can share with my classes when teaching Brit Lit include, subversive messages stitched into the Bayuex Tapestry, Mary Queen of Scots’ heart-wrenching biography, exactly who was (or wasn’t) liberated on Bastille Day, the French taxis of Marne’s involvement in World War I, why French wine owes its existence to American wine (this one’s a bit of a stretch, but funny nonetheless), and more about Charles de Gaulle than I ever wanted to. (Actually, I didn’t know who de Gaulle was, but Clarke tells me why, as an American, I wouldn’t know.)
Of course, I reveled in the facts that I probably won’t share with my students: the fight over Napoleon’s penis, Edward VII’s fellatio chair, Charles VI’s glass delusion (countered by George III’s discourse with trees), and, my personal favorite chapter, “Charles II: The Man Who Taught Everyone to Distrust French Motives for Doing Absolutely Anything; The English fop who sought political asylum in Paris, betrayed his own country and then accidentally tricked the French into betraying themselves.” Or, maybe when I have tenure, I will share them…
The details make the book an easy read, and the overall purpose of illuminating a problematic relationship built on a thousand years of distrust is certainly beneficial for anyone wanting to know more about (or just brush up on) English and French history in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment