Having recently finished Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy, by John Julius Norwich (first published in 2011), I must say I was in the overall – disappointed. My hopes were already diminished as I have interacted with some of his other works and found him to be wanting. This book was no exception. There were numerous errors and I found his analysis frustrating at many points. I wanted to give him another try as the nature of the volume intrigued me. He writes about topics that greatly interest me but there's something a bit off about his approach and degree of acumen.
The book was full of information to be sure and despite my
frustrations on one level I enjoyed it. And I understand that trying to cover
nearly two thousand years of an institution's history in one volume requires more
a survey than a deep analysis. Several chapters were wanting to the extreme but
I'm sure the appeal could be made for limited space.
One wishes he had spent more time analyzing Rome's actions
during World War II, or perhaps Vatican II or even the scandals of the late
1970's and early 1980's.
But I suppose he could say he wasn't writing a history of
Roman Catholicism's relation to fascism, modern theology, or the scandals
surrounding the Vatican Bank, P2, and so forth.
The Papal creation and sanction of the Inquisition was barely
covered – but he could say he wasn't writing a history of the Inquisition. The
same could be said with regard to the Counter-Reformation. There's a chapter on
it, but it was characterized more by what it lacked than what it provided.
I think the most disturbing aspect was the fact that so much
is glossed over and even misrepresented by his (at times) almost trivial
treatment of the institution. He pokes lots of fun, draws out many ironies, but
the end result is a portrait of an incompetent and almost bumbling institution.
Never does one get the real sense of its grandeur and power – but I suppose he
wasn't writing a history of Papal treasures, architecture, and the like, let
alone the power they communicate. I can assure you a trip to Rome leaves one
rather impressed. But what I'm referring to encapsulates much more than mere
pomp. The Papacy was a force to be reckoned with and generated fear. For
multitudes of resistors during the Middle Ages and the time of the Reformation,
it was the Antichrist sitting on the throne of Caesar. One would fail to
understand such thinking if one simply relied on Norwich's history. Perhaps he
thinks such reckonings to be overblown or mere partisan hype – then he should
make the case. But I suppose he could say he wasn't writing a history of
medieval dissent or the Magisterial Reformation's take on the Papacy.
Regardless, I find myself baffled by the title. He clearly
does not believe the Popes to be absolute monarchs at all apart from perhaps a
brief period in the Middle Ages and after the 1929 Lateran Treaty which created
the sovereign state of Vatican City.
Apart from the two centuries of Imperial Papacy which he does
not really present with a great deal of gravity – the institution is viewed
through a lens of would-be's and what if's, a story of debilitating corruption,
manipulation, and decadence. There's truth to these descriptions and
speculations to be sure, but it's almost as if he misses something really
critical at this juncture. He often treats the Papacy as biographies of
individual popes and yet all too often fails to present it at as the expansive
and powerful institution that it was and is – and as such is much bigger than
the personality of individual popes. This is true not just in the contests with
the Holy Roman Empire but even within the Roman Church itself. One feels as if
the popes are more like mostly insignificant UN Secretary-Generals, not the
awe-inspiring potentates they often were – for some a great and evil shadow
looming over Europe for well over a millennia.
Once he turns the corner of the Enlightenment, Norwich's own
liberal bias takes over and he judges the Papacy through the assumptions of
that lens and constantly upbraids the popes for failing to liberalise. Hardly a
fan of the Papacy or Roman Catholicism, I found myself taking umbrage at his
comments and by the end of the work had all but given up on extracting any real
knowledge or value from it. Committed Protestants are sure to be disappointed,
let alone Catholic readers. In the end the only real fans of the book would
have to be modern, mostly secular liberals – and thus from the standpoint of a Christian
study of Church history, the book must be described (at least in part) as
bankrupt. On the one hand he seems to find the whole thing somewhat ridiculous
but on another level expresses disappointment that the popes (by his
estimation) always fell short of living up to what he seems to suggest is their
responsibility. His historical and analytical errors are extensive to say the
least.
The history is fascinating and so one level (as mentioned) I
could not help but enjoy the book but I would not recommend it – especially for
someone hoping to sincerely learn more about the Papacy. It falls short and
given my previous disappointing encounters with his popular histories of
Byzantium, I am unlikely to pick up one of his works again. The Papacy cannot
be trivialised and yet somehow that's the impression given by Norwich and as
such his work is flawed and falls short of giving the reader a sense of the
gravitas and power the Papacy represents. No mere historical oddity or curiosity,
the Papacy demands a more serious consideration. Whether for good or ill, the
servant of Christ or Antichrist, the Papacy still inspires a degree of awe. For
those like Norwich who did not grasp this, one can only say they have not
understood it nor its place in Western history.