Product Description

The reign of King Stephen has been seen as uniquely disastrous in the history of medieval England. The author challenges this verdict by questioning such melodramatic assumptions, and looking clearly at what can and cannot be known about Stephen.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #678802 in Books
• Published on: 2001-10-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 320 pages

Customer Reviews

An alternative view of King Stephen
I have always been interested in this king as he is always maligned by other historians and much of the history associated with his reign took place in or around Winchester. (It is still possible to see the chuch in Stockbridge where Robert of Gloucester hid when fleeing from the former city.)
This is the second book solely dedicated to Stephen that I have read and is more academic than the book published by Sutton. The research is top class although previous knowledge of the reign is essential to understand much what is written. This reads like an essay to rehabilitate Stephen rather than a chronological account of events.
The case presented is credible and states that Stephen's reign being sandwiched between two more capable kings has altered in reputation. Much contemporaneous information must be treated with care as the evidence is notoriously difficult to rely upon and is unlikely to be conclusive. However, the depth of the author's knowledge marks him out as an authority on his subject and his book does the best possible job of rectifying Stephen's poor status.
This book is not really for the general reader but those already familiar with Stephen's reign will find the conclusions stimulating.

Enjoyable and worthwhile
Donald Matthew tries to show that there was no general anarchy during King Stephen's reign. He has some success doing this, but also tries to demonstrate Stephen was not a bad king. He does not give examples of previous or subsequent kings being as unsuccessful with some of their rebellious barons, as was Stephen. Some aspects of King Stephen's reign are only touched on, such as the events leading up to the capture of Robert, earl of Gloucester, the invasion of northern England by David King of Scots in the latter part of Stephen's reign, and the activities of Stephen's heir, Eustace before his death in 1153. He sometimes assumes his reader has knowledge of events that he has not given them.

It is an enjoyable and worthwhile read that puts forward a different view of King Stephen, but I am not convinced he has rehabilitated him as a successful medieval king of England. He does not compare him with other medieval kings who history sees as unsuccessful.

Stephen's Rehabilitation?
This was in truth a bit of a hit-and-miss book. I'm no expert on king Stephen and the so-called "Anarchy" but am aware of Stephen's bad historical reputation. As a previous reviewer noted, Donald Matthew tries to rehabilitate this reputation, trying to show that Stephen was a competent ruler and that there was no general Anarchy during his reign. As far as this goes, Matthew is reasonably good at this, making use of contemporary, or near-contemporary, chronicles, numismatic evidence, and other primary and secondary sources. Indeed, I agree to a certain extent that there was no wholesale lawlessness during the reign and that Stephen was a reasonable king (although I think he was unlucky and suffered from a few lapses in judgment). However, for me Matthew is too quick to discount the chronicles, purely on the grounds that they were largely written by clergy and sometimes impartial, so that he can present a more orderly society and Stephen in a more favourable light. They were contemporary or near-contemporary and as such have good historical weight to them. Even though they should be treated with due caution, they knew more about the situation than we can.

One disappointment was that there was no biographical detail on Stephen, the book is rather a long commentary on the reign and the troubles the king faced. I think the title was a bit misleading in that respect.

Another problem is that Matthew seems to assume that readers have background knowledge of the period already, as such this is not a good "beginner's" book and rather more aimed at academia or students. Some facts/events are mentioned without previous explanation or chronological framework, such as the Earl of Gloucester's capture and release. A final problem is Matthew's tendency to go off on a tangent away from the subject matter. The final chapter, concerning central government's control over the localities in modern times, is largely irrelevant concerning Stephen.

On the whole generally recommended.