Anne Boleyn Fatal Attractions W. Bernard Yale University Press, 2010 256 pages, £20 hardback ISBN 10: 0: 162456 nne Boleyn remains an intrigu ing figure, even afier nearly 500 years. Because interpretations of a historical person's life tur on the locuments available to work with, the scanty evidence for Anne’s life makes it ficult for historians to write the sort simply do not know about Anne and hile novelists and filmmakers are frec Anne Boley s later she miscarried a male ch (0 fill in the gaps imaginatively, histor 1 incident who ance historians hotly debate, When they do speculate, they must employ sound arguments, clear and Indictments from Anne's tial still by Anne. If she kept a diary or corre careful analysis of evidence, balanced exist but there are no transcripts of sponded extensively with anyone the discussion of other views and a rigorous the court proceedings or information evidence has been lost to time. Many dance of conclusions based on per- about witnesses and not many other of- people have written about Anne for one sonal opinion or on present-day values. ficial documents. We have few writings reason of another; but few were truecontemporaries and many were clearly biased, misinformed, or both. While bias docs not make a report untrue, it surely adds to the challenge facing @ historian. In his new book, Ave Boleyre Fatal Attractions, George Bernard is not always equal to that challenge, Some ‘eclectic speculations and his apparent confusion regarding a poem written by the French ambassador's secretary, document he relies on heavily; combine to weaken his reinterpretation of Anne Fatal Attractions joins books by Eric Ines (The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Blackwell, 2004) and Retha M. War nicke (The Rise aad Fall of Anne Cambridge University Press, 1989), and Boleyn, 4 Tong running-debate in the pages of the English Historical Review and the Historical Jounal, as some of the cru cial reading for a study of Anne Boleyn ‘These three historians do agree on sev eral important points: that Anne did not raise herself from humble origins, but was the daughter of a reasonably well-to-do and successful ‘courtierad- ministrator’ that Anne is an important figure in her own right, worthy of schol arly study and deserving of a more nu anced analysis than she has received in the past; that evide scanty and sometimes contradictory or ce for Anne’ life is, suspect: and, finally; each admits en gaging in informed speculation when evidence is unclear or lacking, 66 There is much we simply do not know about Anne and, while novelists and filmmakers are free to fill in the gaps imaginatively, historians must control the urge to speculate 99 Anne Boleyn was born between cirea 1501 and cirea 1507: historians do not agrce on the specifie date oF on which of the Boleyn properties was her birthplace. She had a living brother and sister, but because their birth dates are also unknown, so. too, is their birth or der. Informed speculation on all these questions has Jed to contradictory conclusions among the historians, and a reader must keep in mind that later conclusions about Anne's behaviour may be affected by historians’ percep tion of her age and the expected be haviour for someone of we in the sixteenth century. In 1513,Anne’sfather secured a place for her at the court of the archduchess Lefe: Evidence for Anne Boleyn’ lif is all too anty, but love letters from Henry Vill survive. In this one the King wrote ‘that I wolde you were in rine armes or | in yours, for | thynk it long syns lyst yow Margaret, regent of the Low Countries, where Anne was to learn courtly skills and French, She arrived there in sum- mer 1513. Since historians disagree on her birth date they also disagree to some extent on what she was doing while at Margaret’ court. Knowing her birth date could tell us whether she was twelve years old and ‘one of cighteen ladies and maids of honor ... who] were both companions and servants, keeping thei mistress company and running errands as Bernard argues (p. 7); on whether she was a seven-year-old ‘who was inca: pable of performing the chores of a maid of honor properly... [and] must have resided with the regent’s wards... and share(d| in their schoolroom lessons’, as Warnicke postulates (p. 13) Anne remained in the Low Coun: tries somewhat over a year before going to Franee in 1514 at the time of the mar riage of Henry VIII's sister, Mary. to the French king. Louis NIL Louis died not Jong after and Mary retumed to Eng. land, but Anne remained in France at the court of the new king’s young wife, Claude, and did not return to England until the end of 1521. It is generally ac- cepted that while there she perfected her French and her courtly manners and skills, including musie and dane ing, and she would have been exposed to the fashions and ideas cireulating at the French courtAfter her return to England a pos sible marriage to James amily; like the Boleyns, held a el Butler (whose he earldom of Ormond) was explored but did not come to pass. Henry Percy, ater sixth earl of Northumberland, pur sued Anne, but as marrying her would have required breaking a prior engage ment, this was parently prevented by both his father and Cardinal Wolsey Ives, among others, has suggested this could have contributed to a long-stand. ing dislike of Wolsey by Anne, Anne has also been romantically linked with the poet Thomas Wyatt, but the evidence for this is far more speculative and his- torians disagree on its likelihood. At some point, possibly in 1526 Anne captured the attention of Henry VIII and thus began the long and fa ‘mous courtship that spanned the years until January 1533, Henry's passion for Anne is evident in letters he wrote to her during this time, but historians, and lists, do not agree on whether this passion was teuly love or a lust-flled in Bernard uses the terms fatuation ove infatuation’ and ‘passion’ interchange ably, and by emphasising the ‘depth of his passion’ and the length of the court ship he seems to be trying to argue both sides at once. Either way, since Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon, he likely perceived Anne as simply another potential mistress. Some historians have rgued that Anne kept Henry at bay by insisting she must be his wife before sexual relations would be acceptable Bernard argues precisely the opposite believing that it was Henry who devel ‘oped the idea of marriage and that he was holding Anne's carnal desires in to jeopardise the pos: sibility of wedlock. Bernard devotes an entire chapter to an analysis of the wording in Henry's love letters, which he believes supports this conclusion In order to extricate himself from marriage to Catherine, Henry pursued @ course of action that ultimately sepa: rated the English church from Rome and allowed Henry to procure a divorce from Catherine, thus legitimising his marriage to Anne and any subsequent children of a male heit Henry argued that his lack highlighted the religious invalidity of his Much ink has been spilled over the sincerity of Henry's 1 of Anne and marriage to Catherine religious concerns, his Anne's role in the lengthy and complex proceedings, which involved the rise and fall of several ministers and chutchmen and provide an ongoing subtext for the story of Anne and Heng: Historians find many points of contention in the process and Bemard argues that, while love of Anne was the catalyst, the actions taken He believes that were fully Henny, while they may have ‘egged each other on’ {p. 90) from time to time, Anne did not ever play the roles other historians have suggested for her, including that she engaged in court polities and intrigue discussed religious and intellectual ideas with Henry, and may have pressed for some kind of religious reform Anne was made marchioness of Pembroke in September 1532 and in October she accompanied Henry on trip to meet Francis I near Calais. Bath 66 as common sense tells us that people are seldom solely good or evil, few writers on Anne are wholly believable 9 9 of these events signalled to the world Anne o have married at the end are believed of January 1533. Later that year, in May Archbishop Cranmer pronounced Her 1y's marriage to Catherine invalid, and on June 1 Anne was crowned queen September sting that Anne and Henry Blizabeth 1533, su had begun sharing a bed some time prior to their marriage. This is generally agreed upon although the date and de tails are not, and it has also been s gested that Elizabeth was born p After Elizabeth's birth, Anne was believed to be pregnant again by late winter 1534, although at the expected time no baby arrived. Whether she had a stillborn child, miscarried, or suffered a false pregnancy is not known with cer- tainty: Bernard, Ives and Warnicke each posit a different scenario, with Bernard favoring the phantom pregnancy Anne's behaviour as queen depends on whom one consults. Eustace Chapuys imperial ambassador to Henny’s court us picture of a mean-spirited woman with great personal power over Henry who was intent on having her way Above: Anne Boleyn's motto, The MostREVIEW and getting rid of Catherine of Aragon and her daughter Mary, The Protestant imartyrologist John Foxe, writing later in the sinteenth century, presents her as a good Christian woman who insisted on proper behaviour from her ladies and at- tendants, while from the Catholie per spective Nicholas Sander (1585) offers ‘an opposite and much more seandal- ‘ous view of her, and this dichotomy has persisted among writers ever since. As common sense tells that people are seldom solely good or evil, Few writers on Anne are wholly believable. Anne became pregnant again in late 1535, but miscartied in January 1536. In April 1536 Anne was accused of com mnitting adultery with five men, includ- ing her brother, George. All six were ar rested, indicted, tried, found guilty and executed in short order, with Anne and her brother last, on 15 May 1536, One wants to ask immediately: Why would Anne have become an adulter- cess? In a curiously presentist observa- tion Bernard would have us believe that because of Princess Diana, moderns may not find it so hard to believe a n would commit adultery (p. 156). tism occurs when we allow our: selves to interpret past people or events based only on our modern values and concepts. Granted, it is difficult to avoid; after all, the present is what we know best, but a historian simply must not fall into this trap. What an increas ingly unhappy princess in the twentieth century did cannot automaticaly tell us anything about what a not necessarily unhappy queen in the sixteenth century might have done. Although there were ‘some suggestions that Henry had a mis- tress while married to Anne, what she might have done in response must be understood in sixteenth-century terms, not those of today Every historian of Anne has formed a belief about Anne's personality and whether or not it was likely she commit ted adultery. Neither Ives nor Warnicke believes she did, although Ives Favours a complex factional scenario at court that Jed to Anne's downfall, while Wamicke argues the miscarriage in January 1536 was of a deformed foetus thus feeding Henry’ belief that Anne had bewitched him. Bernard addresses both theories, arguing that neither is correct. He be Hieves not only that Anne had a much less important role in court polities 10 Marci 2011 Histo Review than other historians contend, but also that Anne did commit adultery with at least some of the five men, although he thinks the accusation involuing her brother the ‘least probable ot Presentism occurs when we allow our- selves to interpret past people or events based only on our modern values and concepts. Granted, it is difficult to avoi after all, the present is what we know best, but a historian simply must not fall into this trap 99 Bemard often cites as evidence material from a 1,318+line poem dated two weeks after Anne's death and writ: ten by Lancelot de Carle, secretary 10 the French ambassador to England. The poem is a summary of Anne's life and death, focusing especially on the later years and her trial and execution. Early in Fatal Attractions Berard refers to Carle as Anne's biographer’ and he often frames quotations from the poem in a way that lends an authority to it, and to Carle himself, that arguably neither hes. Carle intended the poem to be read by nly one person, clearly superior, and he prepared it as a poem in hopes it would be more pleasant to read: so, despite its format, it likely had been intended as a report for Francis 1. He makes clear at the outset that he is repeating what he has heard from a variety of sources dur ing the time he has been in England, but hhe does not name his sources, address the truth of his information, correct a number of factual errors he could have checked, or claim to have witnessed any of the events he recounts, These circum= stances combine to make it reasonable toqu ‘content, making it surely unwise to give this source too much credibility, espe- cially without a greater understanding of the poem and its author tion the reliability of the poem's There are thirteen extant copies of Carle's poem—two printed and eleven :manuscripts—in the British Library, the Royal Library of Belgium, the Biblio- théque Nationale and in departmental archives in Bordeaux, Soissons and Va- lenciennes. Except for the two printed copies, which are identical to each oth- cer, none is identical to any of the others, ‘There some of the versions, and there is no documentary evidence to suggest that any of them is Carle’s original. Perhaps re questions about the history of ‘most importantly, there is no indication ‘ane wayor theother that Carle approved. tor even knew about, the published ver- sion, which did not appear until 1545. In 1920 George Ascoli, a French liter ary scholar, examined most of the extant versions of the poem and chose the one he thought most likely closest to Carle’ original. Although Berard uses Ascoli for his citations to Carle, he is mistaken ashen he describes it as an edited copy of the printed version (pp. 202, 224), It is rather a verbatim transcript of the manuscript version in the Bibliotheque Nationale known as f. fr. 12 transcript in Ascoli is ac 7 a line-by-lne listing ofall the variations between 12795 and the other versions, along with some explanatory notes on historical facts and language use, Most English-speaking historians of Anne make their own translation of lines they ‘wish to quote or use the translation in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII which is incomplete and, like any trans- lation, open to interpretation. Scholarly editing and translation are complex and volving fields and much that has been teamed recently needs to be applied to the evaluation and translation of this poem. Any one of these concerns could affect the accuracy and usefulness of the poem as a source, yet Bernard discusses rnone of them. His bibliography lists only coli and the printed version of the poem and includes no works on Carle In order to understand events and people in the past, historians collect as much evidence as they can, t0 which they apply various analytical tech- niques. When evidence is lacking they may feel speculation is warranted and so employ everything else they know about the time and the subject to arrive at logical possibilities. In the process, they usually come to believe certain things about the thoughts and actionsof historical figures, and then, in schol arly articles and books, they present set of arguments to readers who they hope will come to share their beliefs The historian of Anne Boleyn must draw from a complex body of informa- tion: English and French social and po- litical history: court structure, function and polities: social mores and gender relations; diplomacy: and religion and its changing nature. In addition, the methods and meanings of translation, the processes of scholarly editing, and the history of books, printing and pub: lishing in the transitional sixteenth cen- tury, are all relevant to how we under- stand and use written sources for this period. As more and more scholars con- tribute new knowledge in these areas, historians must widen their perspective to be sure that what has been learned from new historical research, the work of translators and scholarly editors and book history, has been taken into con- sideration when crafting their arga ments and conclusions. Fatal Attractions is not the book to read as an introduction to Anne Boleyn’s life. However, historians of Anne should become familiar with Ber id's sometimes intriguing arguments, if only to understand their weak points. He is the first biographer of Anne to use Lancelot de Carle's poem across a broad range of events in Anne's life, but demonstrating a of the context of the poem and thus sound reasons why we should believe it as evidence. An important part of Bernards argument that Anne may very well have commit- ted adultery rests on a charge supposed to have been levelled by the Countess ‘of Worcester. He cites the poem as if it were an independent corroboration of the story, but as Carle never names the woman making the charge and we already know that he is only repeating The Principal and Fellows of St Hugh's College, in association with History Review, REVIEW what he has heard from unnamed oth: crs, it loses much of its value. It is not so much that Bernards speculations are all impossible, but that his discussions are often convoluted, give short shrift to other historians’ speculations and too often include comments. such as the fone about Princess Diana, or another made in regard to the effect on Henry of the possible birth of a deformed baby: In my view any man would regard his impotence and his wife's adulteries as far more humiliating than any deformed foetus’ (p. 129). While this may be true for many twenty-first century men, Ber nard_makes no convineing argument why it would be the thinking of a sis: teenth-century king. ‘Dr Susan Walters Schmid ean independent scholar and freelance editar ving in Nevada ST HUGH’S COLLEGE, OXFORD AND HISTORY REVIEW JULIA WOOD PRIZE 2011 offer the Prize, worth up to £500, for the best historical essay submitted by a schoolboy or girl who, at the closing date, has been in the Sixth Form of any school or college for a period of not more than two years. A version of the winning essay will be published in History Review. Candidates should state whether they are in the Lower or the Upper Sixth, and should give a home and a school address. Essays should be submitted by a school, and no school should submit more than four essays. Essays should be of not less than two thousand words and not more than four thousand words. The choice of historical subject is left to candidates. Essays should be typed, or clearly hand-written, on one side of the paper only. Two copies of each essay should be sent; they will not be returned. The closing date is Friday 10 June 2011, and it is hoped to make an award on | or before Saturday 20 August 2011. Essays should be sent to the Julia Wood Prize Committee, St Hugh's College, Oxford, OX2 6LE. In 2010, the prize was awarded to Nicholas Dixon of Chigwell School. Two further awards were made to: Olivia Elder of Oxford High School for Girls and Robert Wilson of the Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. Histon Revi Manet 2011 a