A History of Britain: Volume 1

Leslie Klinger, author of "The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes," describes Simon Schama's "A History of Britain" as "magisterial," and that indeed is how I felt about the televised version (produced in the U.K. by the BBC and aired here in the U.S. on the History Channel). But for some reason I find myself somewhat disenchanted by its printed form. That it is beautifully written is almost indisputable. It should appeal to anyone with a broad vocabulary or to those who like to read with their dictionary close at hand. But at the same time, some might perceive Schama's style as simply a case of "showing off." Balancing $20 words with $.99 specials to create an understandable and aesthetically pleasing result is a delicate art, and there are times when the narrative seems a bit too adorned.In his preface, Schama describes his three-volume work as an attempt to breathe new life into some dusty historical characters - and for a typical Yank like me, to whom British history is more remote than my country's own, they are indeed dusty. But, while entertaining, his conversational, direct, and almost anecdotal (and even, at times, flippant) style may also alienate his audience. There is a bibliography and index, but there are no footnotes either to his text or even to his quotations, which often sound suspiciously modern or paraphrastic. Certainly, this has to be tolerated to a point - because most people (including me) wouldn't be able to read Anglo-Saxon, nor would they want to stumble over Middle English. You always lose something in translation, though, and that just makes the absence of references more bothersome."A History of Britain" can certainly be enjoyed as a "palpable," or "audible," or "tangible" story, but, in my opinion, it is writing of a non-academic nature, and that usually raises doubts about dreadfully scholarly things like "authority" and "accuracy." At least, it does for me. In my opinion, a "good" history is an impartial presenation of facts, and while Schama is careful to avoid an overt taking of sides, his preference for the unfolding "drama" of Britain's history necessarily forces him into some fairly acrobatic prose when it comes to topics like the English Civil War(s). He is, for instance, particularly hard on Charles the First, claiming that the man rarely thought at all and when he did, it was only about himself (Vol. II, p. 116).Regardless of how you might feel about Charles I (or the Stuarts in general), this hyperbolic description of the man is purely editorial. A few pages later he gives the antagonists in Parliament the same treatment. What makes this and similar disclosures difficult to read and accept as authoritative is not so much the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the assertions as it is that, in playing up the drama, Schama doesn't offer the reader much chance to clean his palate with any kind of reasonable inference: such as, in this case, that the system of government was, at that time, comprehensively flawed, and THAT is what led to the conflict. Whether the king had a brain or not. But that kind of reasoning is eschewed in favor of plot twists - more intrigue and decapitation.There are omissions in his presentation - and, granted, there must be some in a work that spans two millenia (more, if you accept Volume One's starting date of 3500 B.C., but to me that seems to go a bit beyond the pale, and, needless to say, Schama doesn't spend much time on pre-Roman Britain) - but some ommissions are, in my opinion, conspicuous. There is, for example, no mention at all of "The Canterbury Tales," and only a passing remark concerning Geoffrey Chaucer (but, oddly, not as an author). Of course, Schama's work is a review of history, not of literature, but I would have thought "Canterbury Tales" historically significant and influential enough to merit at least a mention. Likewise, Shakespeare is curiously presented. Little is said about the Bard, other than suggesting that "The Tragedy of King Richard the Second" was a rather clever bit of "Lancastrian-Tudor propaganda, neatly disposing of the embarrassment of a deposition by claiming that Richard resigned the throne rather than having it snatched from his desperate grip." (Vol. I, p. 264). I'm quoting him somewhat out of context, since there is some truth to this statement (and at any rate I don't really believe he meant it to be controversial), but I do think it aptly illustrates the sort of odd details Schama considered worthy enough to mention in a comprehensive history - instead of things like Shakespeare's influence on Elizabethan England or on British history.More seriously, particularly where Roman and Medieval Britain is concerned, Schama tends to be far more precise about who did what, why they did it, and what they said about it afterwards than is, I think, reasonable. The fact is that, although research and archaeology continue to reveal and tantalize, distant times in the British Isles are still more unknown than known, and about them there is, to say the least, some scholarly debate. Much of the written evidence exists in fragmentary accounts that rarely corroborate and often contradict each other. Bede is probably the best known, and certainly one of the most significant, but even so he is not generally regarded as 100% reliable. Schama relies on Bede, and does so almost without caveat. Geoffrey of Monmouth isn't wholly to be trusted, either, but Schama goes a little far in making him out to be the author of "outrageous fantasy," (Vol. I, p. 116) - like some sort of twelfth-century pulp novelist. Most ironically, the legend of King Arthur is given only incidental mention. That is selling the story a little short, I believe. No, there is no need for a protracted discussion of the "real" Arthur, but I think it was a mistake not to mention his symbolic value and the degree to which he represents a society's contemporary view of itself.But all of these are academic quibbles. Although he prefers a dramatic approach to a more rigid scholarly one, lest the matter-of-fact make for dry reading, Schama's history is not a "bad" history. It may be a kind of "cliffhanger," but its performance-like presentation does make for entertaining reading. If British history as written by the likes of Macauley must be considered heavy fare - something like, say, a porterhouse steak or a Henry-the-Eighth-sized turkey leg - then I think Schama's version has to be taken as a "weak" white wine - that is, good for sippin', but probably not a regular choice for the connoisseur. A good introduction to the treasure that is Britain's history and one that entices the reader to learn more.On that note, then, my unsolicited advice is to buy the DVD set first. It goes into less detail (obviously), but Schama narrates it very well and what you don't get in the books - nuances of inflection or body language - makes the DVDs more palatable - thus a better place to start.

If seeking a vigorous first exposure to the history of Britain or a lubrication of lessons once learned and long rusted, Simon Schama’s “A History of Britain Volume 1” is the book you’ll want by your side.Though taking British history from 3000BC to AD1603 in this first volume, by its first 100 pages Schama provides the most robust coverage of pre-history to the crowning of William the Conqueror I’ve ever seen.Where authors like Peter Ackroyd in “Foundation” and of recent note, Robert Tombs, in his massive “The English and their History” have attempted similar introductions, Schama pulls off what these others have failed. (Ackroyd offers no maps with scant context; Tombs believes he can meaningfully take readers from whoa to the Norman Conquest in just 20 pages – he can’t.)The novice to British history will want to ask: Who were the first British? How were they organized? Why did the Romans invade? Why the Anglo-Saxons? Why then the Vikings? Who was Alfred the Great? Who was Edward the Confessor? What made William finally cross the Normandy shore? And what then? For these underscore the “British” story thereafter.So Schama takes the reader’s hand, and replete with narrative, humor, opinion and chronological flow provides meaningful answers to each concern.But there is a word of warning. To appreciate Schama’s thoroughness, readers need to prepare for a solid read: the secret to Schama’s story telling is his magnificent economy with words. Narrative twists and crescendos are at times found mid-paragraph – and Schama extrudes his paragraphs into elongated strings of thought. Blink and you may miss something. It takes a little time to adjust to this writing style – but once you do the pages flow, and you begin to appreciate a total absence of fluff, filler or repetition. It soon explains why the volumes in the series each run just 350 pages approximately – and why so much detail can be offered in such little space.Further, many will also appreciate Schama’s almost deliberate shying from nomenclature, and academic pretentiousness. His aim is to teach – and to me, he succeeds.The beauty of history is in the detail. And once the basics are tucked away (and remember that no matter the source, history – especially that of Britain – is a tale of names, family trees and places), you will want to flesh out eras of interest: and when you do you may come across information omitted or treated pithily in this book. That is the game we play whenever “introductory” texts are studied.The danger, however, is wasting money on books that cut their stories too fine. With Simon Schama’s “A History of Britain volume 1”, you’ll not find this the case.

This is a well-written, well-researched book. It succeeds in avoiding the trap that many historians fall into of mistaking a neutral tone with a boring one; the author frequently injects a note of wry humor by a turn of phrase that will catch the reader somewhat off-guard: "But although the poets and balladeers sang her praises as if she were a goddess, Elizabeth I was only too obviously made of flesh and blood. She was vain, arrogant, spiteful, bloody-minded, frequently unjust and even more frequently maddeningly indecisive: an authentic Tudor, in other words.", as an example from the final chapter. On the down side, as other reviewers have pointed out, very little attention was paid to any history OTHER than that of the succession of Kings and Queens; the book is titled "The History of Britain", not "The Kings and Queens of Britain". (That's another book entirely.) On the other hand, it failed to provide what I had hoped for, based on the dates in the title: I had hoped to find a good history of the pre-conquest kings, and found almost nothing about them; just a few mentions in chapter one. By chapter 2, we were already on to the Conquest, and never looked back. So my complaint about this book, and the reason it only gets four stars rather than five, is that it at once pays too much, AND too little, attention to the litany of Kings.

This is a very detailed and interesting history of Britain (though really more a history of England ) even some humour. My only complaint is it could do with some paragraphs, difficult book to put down and pick up

A detailed and engaging history of England, with reference to the other nations only when they directly affected England. Anyone wanting an insight into Wales, Scotland or Ireland would be better looking elsewhere. Still, it's well presented with good production values and hasn't dated, despite being made in the year 2000.

Succinct, witty and reliable, Simon Schama has an uncanny ability to bring history to life through character, scent, sounds and skullduggery. Loved it.

although a bit hard going for me at times i really like this , i feel as though i have been transported back in time when i read it, i recently had a long train trip , i became so engrossed in this book that before i knew it i was home, only reason i didn't give it 5 stars is because a lot words used i don't understand , but my kindle helps me out there.

Great overview of the history of England (Wales, Scotland and Ireland are no more than bit players) from ancient to Elizabethan times. Due to the scope of the book Schama does skip over some details like Henry V's excursion into France after Agincourt and Francis Drake, Walter Ralegh and Shakespeare are barely mentioned. However there are obviously other history books that serve to flesh out anything not covered in this tome. I loved the book and I've already downloaded the other two of the series. Well done and thank you to Simon Schama.