It's an unfortunate fact that there is not a single novel in the Christian Fiction genre written by a British author (unless you count G.A.Henty). It's high time that there was one because this novel was in some sense, everything I feared it would be (but hoped it would not).
Americans are sometimes inclined to interpret every event in European history through the lens of American History. I understand, it's natural, but it's also fraught with problems. Douglas Bond's book is no exception to this. It's all tinged with Revolutionary fervour, and distinct comparisons to the American Revolutionary War can be found with all the talk about ‘freedom’ from ‘oppression’.

Reader's might say 'what's wrong with that, it’s about the Peasant's Revolt?'. Well actually, no, the Revolt only features in the last few chapters, and it also wasn't quite like it was depicted in this book.
Many of the people involved in it were not, in fact, peasants, or at least not villeins. Certainly not the poorest of the poor, but those of some wealth who had something to lose from taxation. Nor were they anti-monarchist republicans. They professed loyalty to the King.

That’s my main problem, it’s that fundamental misunderstanding of late Medieval English history and society that underpins books like this. Admittedly, many of the details about Wycliffe and one of his clerks, Hugh was interesting, but it would have been better if this story was just about him and Wycliffe. All the nonsense with annoying Willard was, I felt, largely unnecessary. I felt he was are basically just a cardboard cut-out, with artificially created grievances to rail against. Indeed, I would suggest he was not really a ‘peasant’ at all. Early on the in the book in mentioned he had to pay rent for his land, among other fines and fees to show how oppressed he was. However, a peasant who held his land by rent could not be a villein, he would he a Free Tenant and exempt from many customary dues.

This was only one of several egregious historical errors or inaccuracies in the story. Probably the worst one was when Oxford was described as a ‘village’. Oxford is not a village, it is a city, it has been since the 11th century. Medieval English people did not eat or grow corn, what Americans would know as maize, because it had not been introduced to Europe yet, and pottage was not always made from peas. It could be made from anything, the word just referred to any dish made in a single pot. The reference towards the beginning about Willard and his family eating disgusting mush several days old from a pot is taken from a children’s rhyme ‘Pease pottage hot, pease pottage cold, pease pottage in the pot, nine days old’.
The rhyme is not accurate. No sensible peasant woman cooked so much pottage that it would last nine days. It would mean she taken more than her fair share of fresh ingredients, and was wasting them. I suspect the detail was added just to show how horrible the lives of peasants supposedly were. As was the mention of peasants being forbidden from bearing arms, which made no sense at all, as there was a law that young boys had to train with a longbow every weekend.

Of course, in the end, the violence of the Peasant’s Revolt is underplayed, and the supposed ‘justice’ of the cause overstated. No mention is made of the killings or the fact that after the ‘heroic’ peasant mob stormed the Tower of London (which peasants were not locked up in), they dragged the Archbishop of Canterbury Simon Sudbury, out into the street and hacked his head off. He and all the other figures of the established church are vilified as evil and corrupt (because there had to be bad guys), especially friars, who apparently love nothing more than to go around raping women.

By all means, authors should write about Wycliffe and his furthering the Gospel, but I think they need to be more faithful to the historical facts and more careful about the moral lessons they seek to convey. One of the potentially worrying messages in this was that violent political insurrection could be ‘in the will of God’, and consistent with the Gospel- provided of course that it was against perceived ‘oppressors’.
Historical inaccuracies and attitudes like these are a source of great consternation in a book which many people are going to accept as accurate and realistic in every detail. Especially if said book is written for some didactic purpose.

I requested a PDF of this book from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review and all opinions expressed are my own.

This book covers a rich era of British history through the rather different perspectives of a young Oxford scholar and a peasant. Events first bring the two together on the battlefield of Crecy where both are forced to grow up quickly.

Once they return home, each man encounters the injustice of the age in a different manner. Hugh is at school with John Wycliffe, a man whose legacy requires no explanation. Willard's life in contrast is a struggle. When the plague arrives, status protects no one.

While Hugh assists Wycliffe in translating the Bible, Willard lives in anger at the position he is born to. When the men next come together, it is to join again in another type of battle against the corrupt friars and priests of their day.

This book does an admirable job of portraying those who took advantage of the church for their own benefit while balancing it with those who truly wished to share the gospel. Including several verses of scripture in Old English made it real. This was the work they were doing that continues to benefit us to this day.

Life in the 14th century was vividly brought to life through these characters. I only wish that the book had not ended so abruptly.