Editing John, King of England (section)

===Historiography===
[[File:BritLibRoyal14CVIIFol006rMattParisSelfPort.jpg|thumb|alt=A medieval sketch of Matthew Paris, dressed as a monk and on his hands and knees.|A self-portrait of Matthew Paris, one of the first historians of John's reign]]
Historical interpretations of John have been subject to considerable change over the centuries. Medieval [[chronicle]]rs provided the first contemporary, or near contemporary, histories of John's reign. One group of chroniclers wrote early in John's life, or around the time of his accession, including [[Richard of Devizes]], [[William of Newburgh]], [[Roger of Hoveden]] and [[Ralph de Diceto]].<ref>Gillingham (2007), p. 2.</ref> These historians were generally unsympathetic to John's behaviour under Richard's rule, but slightly more positive towards the very earliest years of John's reign.<ref>Holt (1963), p. 19, cited Gillingham (2007) p. 4.</ref>

Reliable accounts of the middle and later parts of John's reign are more limited, with [[Gervase of Canterbury]] and [[Ralph of Coggeshall]] writing the main accounts; neither of them were positive about John's performance as king.<ref>Warren, p. 7; Gillingham (2007), p. 15.</ref> Much of John's later, negative reputation was established by two chroniclers writing after his death, [[Roger of Wendover]] and [[Matthew Paris]], the latter claiming that John attempted conversion to Islam in exchange for military aid from the [[Almohad]] ruler [[Muhammad al-Nasir]]—a story modern historians consider untrue.<ref>Warren, pp. 11, 14.</ref>

In the 16th century, political and religious changes altered the attitude of historians towards John. [[Tudor period|Tudor]] historians were generally favourably inclined towards the King, focusing on his opposition to the Papacy and his promotion of the special rights and prerogatives of a king. Revisionist histories written by [[John Foxe]], [[William Tyndale]] and [[Robert Barnes (martyr)|Robert Barnes]] portrayed John as an early Protestant hero, and Foxe included the King in his ''[[Book of Martyrs]]''.<ref name="Bevington, p. 432">Bevington, p. 432.</ref> [[John Speed]]'s ''Historie of Great Britaine'' in 1632 praised John's "great renown" as a king; he blamed the bias of medieval chroniclers for the King's poor reputation.<ref>Gillingham (2007), p. 4.</ref>

[[File:Foxe's Book of Martyrs title page.jpg|thumb|upright|alt=A photograph of the wood block print of the Book of Martyrs. The book's title is in the centre and various scenes from the book are depicted around it.|[[John Foxe]]'s ''[[Book of Martyrs]]'', officially titled ''Acts and Monuments'', which took a positive view of John's reign]]
By the Victorian period in the 19th century, historians were more inclined to draw on the judgements of the chroniclers and to focus on John's moral personality. [[Kate Norgate]], for example, argued that John's downfall had been due not to his failure in war or strategy, but due to his "almost superhuman wickedness", whilst James Ramsay blamed John's family background and his cruel personality for his downfall.<ref>Norgate (1902), p. 286; Ramsay, p. 502.</ref> Historians in the "[[Whiggish]]" tradition, focusing on documents such as the [[Domesday Book]] and Magna Carta, trace a progressive and [[universalist]] course of political and economic development in England over the medieval period.<ref name="DyerP4CossP81">Dyer, p. 4; Coss, p. 81.</ref>

These historians were often inclined to see John's reign, and his signing of Magna Carta in particular, as a positive step in the constitutional development of England, despite the flaws of the King himself.<ref name=DyerP4CossP81/> [[Winston Churchill]], for example, argued that "[w]hen the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns".<ref>Churchill, p. 190.</ref>

In the 1940s, new interpretations of John's reign began to be published, based on research into documents dating to his reign, such as [[pipe roll]]s, charters, court documents and similar primary records. Notably, an essay by [[Vivian Galbraith]] in 1945 proposed a "new approach" to understanding the ruler.<ref>Galbraith, pp. 128–130, cited Gillingham (2007), p. 1.</ref> The use of recorded evidence was combined with an increased scepticism about two of the most colourful chroniclers of John's reign, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris.<ref>Turner, pp. 22–23.</ref> In many cases, the detail provided by these chroniclers, both writing after John's death, was challenged by modern historians.<ref>Warren, pp. 11–16.</ref>

Interpretations of Magna Carta and the role of the rebel barons in 1215 have been significantly revised: Although the charter's symbolic, constitutional value for later generations is unquestionable, in the context of John's reign, most historians now consider it a failed peace agreement between "partisan" factions.<ref>Huscroft, p. 174; Barlow, p. 353.</ref> There has been increasing debate about the nature of John's Irish policies. Specialists in Irish medieval history, such as Sean Duffy, have challenged the conventional narrative established by [[Lewis Warren]], suggesting that Ireland was less stable by 1216 than was previously supposed.<ref>Duffy, pp. 221, 245.</ref>

Most historians today, including John's recent biographers Ralph Turner and Lewis Warren, argue that John was an unsuccessful monarch, but note that his failings were exaggerated by 12th- and 13th-century chroniclers.<ref name="Bradbury 2007, p. 353"/> [[Jim Bradbury]] notes the current consensus that John was a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general", albeit, as Turner suggests, with "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits", including pettiness, spitefulness and cruelty.<ref>Bradbury (2007), p. 353; Turner, p. 23.</ref> [[John Gillingham]], author of a major biography of Richard I, follows this line too, although he considers John a less effective general than do Turner or Warren, and describes him "one of the worst kings ever to rule England".<ref>Gillingham (2001), p. 125.</ref>

Bradbury takes a moderate line, but suggests that in recent years modern historians have been overly lenient towards John's numerous faults.<ref>Bradbury (2007), p. 361.</ref> Popular historian [[Frank McLynn]] maintains a counter-revisionist perspective on John, arguing that the King's modern reputation amongst historians is "bizarre", and that, as a monarch, John "fails almost all those [tests] that can be legitimately set".<ref>McLynn, pp. 472–473.</ref> According to [[C. Warren Hollister]], "The dramatic ambivalence of his personality, the passions that he stirred among his own contemporaries, the very magnitude of his failures, have made him an object of endless fascination to historians and biographers."<ref>Hollister, p. 1.</ref>