We know that the standard criticism of history is that it’s written by the winners. Certainly, the winners write the first draft of history and it is often difficult to find the losers’ version – if there is one. We all know that Harold was killed by an arrow in his eye launched by a member of William the Conqueror’s army. We know this because it is depicted in a 70 metre long tapestry created by William’s wife, Queen Matilda, and her ladies in waiting.

The earliest records though say not that Harold was killed by an arrow, but that he was hacked to death. Another Anglo-Saxon King, Harald, defeated by Harold in the North of England three weeks earlier, had in fact been killed by a chance arrow and so it may simply be a case of mistaken identity.

But in its numerous sections, with commentary in mediaeval Latin, the tapestry records the history, not only of the conquest itself and Harold’s demise but, far more importantly, what led up to it. It explains the legal justification for the invasion. It shows Harold swearing fealty to William, so accepting that William was entitled to the crown. Harold certainly didn’t act as though he had sworn fealty to William, hence the attempt to repulse the invasion. However no tapestry, of any length and telling an alternative version, has ever been found.

Last week the Radio 4 programme ‘In our Time’ introduced us to Marsilius of Padua. In 1324, when living in Paris, he wrote 'Defensor Pacis' (Defender of the Peace). This was when the Papacy, the Holy Roman Emperor and the French King were fighting over who had supreme power on Earth.

Marsilius provided a surprisingly democratic analysis – that the people were the source of power and entitled to elect a leader to act on their behalf and remove him when they chose. He therefore favoured an elected Holy Roman Emperor, but he also concluded that there were no grounds for the Papacy to have secular power. This meant that the Vatican was not entitled to gather taxes: instead the clerics should return to the poverty of the Apostles.

His reasoning? The justification for the pre-eminence of the Pope over other bishops was based on the gospel of Matthew 16:19, when Jesus said to Peter:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Catholic church said that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, was the successor of Peter, the first bishop of Rome, and so inherited those sweeping powers.

Having studied many of the ancient texts, however, Marsilius came to the conclusion that there was far more evidence to support the view that Paul had been the first Bishop of Rome. But Paul had not been given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and so the Pope, as Paul’s successor, could not claim to have them either.

Later on, in the 16th Century, Protestants naturally found his work ‘persuasive’ when looking for justification for breaking away from Rome. Indeed, Henry VIII was provided with a translation of the work of Marsilius by his chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, although with the bits about democracy missing.

And then there is the idea of ‘heresy’ as a means of securing a historical narrative. Heresy as we now use the word came into being around the 4th century AD. This was after Constantine had decided that Christianity was to be the Roman state religion. The Greek noun – haeresis – from which heresy derives indicated something chosen or understood. Not usually a reason for putting someone to death.

Granted the state of Roman medicine and social conditions, life tended to be short and brutish. For the emperors there was the added risk of violent death at the hands of a rival. In fact it was on average safer to be a gladiator than an emperor. It was not though unusual for an emperor to introduce a state religion, generally involving worship of himself. However, in view of the short average length of reign such religions did not really take root.

A recently published book, ‘Heresy’, now traces the series of chance events which led up to Christianity taking hold of society, all because Constantine reigned for 31 years, a lot longer than usual. His motivations for picking Christianity of all the different religions swirling about in Roman society are unclear, although he may have seen its hierarchical structure as fitting in with the usual Imperial cult.

Having given Christianity his seal of approval, it flourished. He made sure of that, as did the members of what had until that time been only one of many strange and much vilified sects. After all, eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ...

Accusations of heresy became one of the go-to methods of suppressing dissent. It also had the side-effect of removing accounts of alternative religions from the record when accompanied by the burning of those documents.

Detailed research now shows, however, that in the earliest days of Christianity, the miracles depicted in the Gospels had their equivalent amongst so very many others claiming to be divine. Typically someone would arrive and claim that the sins of the people were so dreadful that the end of the world was coming. Only he could save them. According to the writings at the time, they all had a similar look – which included wild, long hair. It was discovered that Alexander, one of the more prominent ones, was going bald and so had hair extensions in order to look the part.

Another, Apollonius, lived around the time of Christ and stories of his life include similar stories of raising the dead, walking on water and curing assorted illnesses, although not replacing missing limbs – something rather beyond the skill of the average magician.

The Greek and Roman philosophers of the time provide us with many accounts of such miracles and make fun of them all and of their followers. All of this, however, had been suppressed by the early church through the use of the concept of heresy and the penalties it carried.

And not only were there so many ‘prophets’ in those times, but we can now see that the writings about Christianity were very many – not just the authorised canon we now have - and varied wildly in what they said. There were far more than four gospels. Some of these we learn about because of the record of the decision to exclude them. Others have turned up in obscure collections of old papyrus's.

We have the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdelaine, Judas, the Egyptians, Peter, the Hebrews, and so many others and even the Acts of Pilate. Some did not describe Christ as the meek and mild saviour beloved of Christmas cards: in the Gospel of Thomas we see him as a bully when a child. He would use his special powers to cause pain and suffering to those who offended him.

In another, he fraudulently sells his brother into slavery so that he can be transported to India and ultimately become a missionary there.

For some, Pilate was a good guy and for other groups of Christians in the East, God was represented by a snake.

And of course the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdelaine tells us that she was the true leader of Christianity.

And in our own turbulent times, despite the obvious lessons of history, and in order to enable the seizure of power, history is again being rewritten.

We have Putin who, like Stalin, has created his own fantasy version of the Russian empire, one which he wants to ‘restore’. In China, the thought of Xi Jinping redefines the boundaries and sphere of influence of China by reference to a former imaginary age. And Modi has recast India as an entirely Hindu country.

Over in America we have that master craftsman of history, Mr Trump, explaining to us how, in his alternative universe, he is still president and the legal system is unlawfully being used by his enemies in order to attack him and make him a martyr.

A video posted last week showed images of a pretend newspaper article. It details “what happens after Donald Trump wins” with a narrator reading hypothetical headlines like “Economy Booms!” and “Border is closed,” styled as World War I-era newspaper clippings. Under one headline that reads “What’s next for America?” is a reference to the “creation of a unified Reich.” And he’s even talking about a third term in office.

Obviously he considers himself to be above the constitution.

2 June 2024

Paul Buckingham