Wolf Hall

by Hilary Mantel
Rewriting and Fictionalization of History.
Documentary vs. Fiction.
Revisiting History.

Andra Tatiana Enășoiu, BCS, I

Rewriting and Fictionalization of History

What is it with history that keeps attracting more and more writers to reinterpret it? In
the modern and postmodern era we had a large number of novelists who took up historical
subjects as plots for their novels, writers such as Philippa Gregory, Ken Follett, Diana
Gabaldon or Hilary Mantel. Why is that?
First off, let’s see how a historical novel is defined in the dictionary. Britannia defines
it as “ a novel that has as its setting a period of history and that attempts to convey the spirit,
manners, and social conditions of a past age with realistic detail and fidelity (which is in
some cases only apparent fidelity) to historical fact.” A more minimalist description is given
by the Merriam- Webster Dictionary, which states that a historical novel is “a novel having as
its setting a period of history and usually introducing some historical personages and events.”
But many writings comply with these features and are still not seen historical novels. What
makes Hilary Mantel’s story a historical fiction?
History and fiction have always mingled in the creative authorial mind of the prose
writer. After all, history can be defined as just another form of narrative told by different
voices of those who took part in certain events of the past. Thus, the objectivity and
subjectivity of the narrative instance blend together leading to an account of the event which
favors the writer’s opinion on the issues under discussion. That is to say, fiction tends to
weave a storyline viewed through one or several pairs of eyes, but having its origins in the
imagination and interpretation of the author. Nonetheless it's hard to draw a clear line
between history and fiction because they somehow depend on each other and they imply one
another to a certain extent, at least seen through the modernist paradigm of writing.
 A.S Byatt argues that the novel “took its roots in historical documents” and that’s why
it “has always had an intimate link with history”. (Holton, 137) However, unlike history,
fiction doesn’t just lay down a set of events before the reader's eyes, in a persuasive attempt
to outline the development of a nation or another.

“The novelist tries to get us to reimagine the “facts”, to think about them in terms other than
those put forward by the historian or the politician. The writer of the palimpsest is not so much
concerned with offering an alternate version of historical reality as he is in demonstrating the
complexity and multifarious quality of the past”. (Holton, 230)

For instance, going back to a source of a historical event in order to have a clear view
on the way it influenced the world, would automatically imply an interpretation of that event,
not only an account of the event as it was originally rendered. It is thus converted into a
literary text, with two different interpreters: the historian and the common reader, who may or
may not take the event further, processing its meaning and transforming it into a narration.
(Larsen, 4)
We see that many of the modernist and postmodernist writers turn to history as setting
for their works. Paradoxically, that is because despite our modernity and fast advancement
towards technology, we still need to make use of the past and it absolutely defines us so it is
almost impossible not to take it into consideration when talking about literature, politics,
philosophy or any social field. (Hutcheon, 87) But what the postmodernist literature does is
relate to history and even determine the world we live in through that history, nevertheless
throwing a different view upon it, another way of perceiving the history we all know and
recognize. “And the implication is that there can be no single, essentialised, transcendent
concept of “genuine historicity” (…) no matter what the nostalgia (Marxist or traditionalist)
for such an entity.” (Hutcheon, 89)
Another aspect of the historical novel is that unlike a historical record, which
scientifically gives the information you need about a certain period - in this case, about the
lives of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell -, a historical novel succeeds in bringing to life
the true spirit and atmosphere of that period. Hilary Mantel introduces you entirely into that
world, through the language she uses, the dialogue, through the description of the clothes, of
the furniture and so on. That’s one of the differences between history and historical fiction.
“For these books certainly do succeed in evoking the soul of the period of which they treat.
They’re creating the legendary and mythical atmosphere which scientific history neglects
(…)” (Williams, 360)
Historical fiction writers, as much as historical painters, come face to face with the
same problem that everyone would have: how one spoke three hundred years ago, for
example. Hilary Mantel also had to search for a lot of pieces regarding the language in order
to puzzle them and to create a vocabulary that is appropriate for that period, but can also be
easily understandable by the modern audience, without having to check the dictionary every 2
pages. “The most they can do is to study the record of the past and make a guess, the success
of which depends on their equipment and insight.” (Matthews, 8) However, it is frustrating
for writers to be continuously harassed by the critics, when they don’t know if certain parts of
the novel are historically accurate or not, because of their own lack of knowledge. Hilary
Mantel was overly judged for some of the dialogue she introduced or even for the way she
described the characters and their behavior. For example, many said that Thomas Cromwell
wouldn’t have been so devastated after his children’s deaths because he was rather cold and
distant, not the emotional picture Hilary Mantel drew. The truth is, nobody can know these
things, not even the historians who claim to know Thomas Cromwell entirely.

“Every time the author writes, "He thought that . . ." or "She felt that . . .", she's making it up.
We never know what people thought or felt, unless they kept frank and full journals. And the world is
full of people who lie to their own diaries.” (Mantel, Interview)

What is even harder is to attribute these dialogues to dead characters, each of them
having his own personality, his own way of talking, which the writer has to guess or has to
imagine based on the records she can find. And how does one expect a historical novel writer
to be perfectly accurate when history itself is not? Many believe that history relates the events
exactly as they happened, objectively, but in fact, history is as subjective as fiction, being
influenced by many factors such as propaganda, nationalism and so on. If you take a look at
the history of two ex-enemy nations, for example the Scottish and the English, you will find
the same events which led to the dispute in both of the countries. What is interesting is that
each of them will present that history accordingly to their way of seeing the truth. The
Scottish will say that the English were oppressive and the English will say that the Scottish
were the ones to blame. There are no sides, only the one you choose to be part of. This is the
case with every nation who was conquered or had wars with other countries. This is also the
case with historians that search for the information, but have to stick to a certain academic
conduct in order to present the past as the “latest trend”, sort of “the past is the new black”.

“The most scrupulous historian is an unreliable narrator; he brings to the enterprise the biases
of his training and the vagaries of his personal temperament, and he is often obliged, in order to make
his name, to murder his forefathers by coming up with a different take on events from the one that held
sway when he himself learned the discipline; he must make the old new, because his department's
academic standing depends on it.” (Mantel, Interview)

The subject of one’s historical novel is of essential importance. Many people don’t
have the patience to read history, especially the young generations who find it boring. What
Hilary Mantel did by bringing to life the story of Thomas Cromwell in relation to the famous
Henry VIII and his love life drama was exactly giving the public, the readers a fresh view
upon the story, an interesting narration upon an overly discussed subject.

“A British critic, Professor George Saintsbury, has laid down the law that “the true historical
novelist employs the reader’s presumed interest in historical scene and character as an instrument to
make his own work attractive.” ” (Matthews, 21)

But this is also very risky, as many critics believe, especially for the younger
generations whose only contact with history may come from these historical novels. That’s
why critics believe that is the duty of the writers to be as accurate as possible, so they don’t
give out false information. Stephanie Merritt argues that it is actually not the job of writers to
be historians. Their job is to write stories, not to account history in its most accurately way
possible, otherwise why would there be historians and writers and not just give up one of
these jobs?
Of course, ultimately you have to do the research if you want to write a historical
novel, you have to give correct information in order for everything to seem real, so the
audience believes you. You can’t just make up everything because you will lose the readers.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t play with other parts, which are not so well defined in the
records, to shape the information so it serves you a purpose as a writer, especially as a
historical novel writer, exactly as Hilary Mantel did with the character of Thomas Cromwell.
She took the liberty to give the reader another approach, a more sympathetic one because
there were many blanks to fill in about him. That’s what most of the critics don’t actually
understand.
Wolf Hall: Fact vs. Fiction. Revisiting History

When it comes to historical fiction novels, critics will always be of different opinions.
Some of them will like the novel, other will criticize hard. That is exactly what happened
with Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall. Some of the critics believe that she created a masterpiece,
along with the readers, while others think she’s too historically inaccurate, even though the
research for this book took her five years. But as I mentioned earlier, historical accuracy in a
historical fiction piece is not a must and it is certainly not something to judge a novel by. It is
somehow like the problem of film adaptations made after books and how much they respect
the plot from the original source. The historical novel is criticized so much in comparison to
its real historical evidence that it kind of loses its status as an individual piece of work, piece
of art. It becomes just a branch of the “main tree”, namely history, instead of standing on its
own, as its particular sub-genre and form of literature, historical fiction.
Hilary Mantel, as she herself admits, took sides when it came to constructing the plot,
that’s why she made Thomas Cromwell a good character, an empathetic and enlightened
person unlike he is portrayed in other historical records, where he’s cruel and a torturer.
Hilary had to fill in the blanks somehow, because Thomas Cromwell is a very controversial
figure, with not so large a background as, for example Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn or other
important figures, although he is important in history. On this note, the writer also made
Thomas More the villain of the story, when in most of the historical representations he was a
good and honorable man, not misogynistic and spiteful. But that’s just how she wanted to
represent this and it was a brave move, which brought her a Golden Man Booker prize. But it
is impossible not to take sides as an author when you purposely take a historical piece and
reinterpret it into a novel.
The first moment you give a story a perspective, a narrator, the audience will feel
inclined to see those events in a certain light presented by the writer. It is understandable that
Hilary couldn’t be impartial and that’s just how she saw the characters, according to the
historical evidence she could get. These are some of the biggest historical inaccuracies she
introduced in her novel and one of the main reason her novel, Wolf Hall, was so criticized.
However, looking from another point of view, as Hilary Mantel stated in her
interview, “Whether I hit the truth or miss it, no one now alive can judge.” Critics point and
point out again at how big of a historical inaccuracy the change in the characters of Thomas
Cromwell and Thomas More is, but as the writer did, they only have the written evidence of
the past: some letters, some vague records, not the entire truth. Moreover, if you, for
example, read a story of a killer from his point of view, you will empathize with him, you
will try to understand him, even though he is a killer. That’s somehow the case with placing
Thomas Cromwell on the hero side of the story.
Now, talking about historical accuracy of the characters, from another point of view,
Thomas Cromwell was indeed a smart man. If he was the villain the critics say he was, then
at least, the readers can give him the credit that he was a skillful man, ready in every situation
and he knew how to rise on the social scale, to go from nobody to somebody really important,
to write his name in the history of England.

“He can draft a contract, train a falcon, draw a map, stop a street fight, furnish a house and fix
a jury. He will quote you a nice point in the old authors, from Plato to Plautus and back again. He
knows new poetry, and can say it in Italian. He works all hours, first up and last to bed. (…) He will
take a bet on anything.” (Mantel, 31)

What the author tried to do was to reconstruct the main passages through history by
adding her personal touch in those corners where people don’t know exactly what happened
or don’t have the official information. “We know he had a jester called Anthony, but we
don’t know what sort of jokes Anthony told.” (Mantel, Q&A). Basically, she tried to
speculate where she could, but also tried to keep the information accurate where it was
available.
Of course, we have only the record of the events, of the actions of the characters but
we don’t have their personal accounts, it is not a 1st person narration, in which, for example,
Thomas Cromwell decides to write why he’s going to do a certain thing or why Henry VIII
was never truly satisfied with any of his wives. We have letters, we have documents, but
none of them present the stream of consciousness of any of the characters in the book. As I
mentioned before, even if we did have diaries or things as such, many people choose to lie
even there. That’s when the writer has to come up with plausible reasons, by putting herself
in the character’s shoes, by trying to understand them and the motives behind their actions.

“We know what people did but often we don’t know why they did it and as a biographer or a
historian you can only explore that to a certain degree. (…) What aids you is understanding their
 cultural context: the reasons why they may have thought as they did – what might have actuated them”
(Mantel, Q&A)

Unlike other authors, Hilary Mantel didn’t just try to cover the part of “what would
this character say?”, but instead, along the writing of the novel, she kept asking herself what
the character thought. That’s what made her historical work feel so real, because she went
beyond the appearances, straight in the mind of the characters. She developed a kind of
psychological level where she tried to understood from inside out the mind and conscious of
Thomas Cromwell, Thomas More, Henry VIII and so on so they could feel verisimilar for the
audience and that’s also one of the reasons her novel stands out from the other contemporary
historical novels.
Moreover, she transforms the characters into simple, ordinary people. She calls
Cromwell “he” along the pages, she calls Henry VIII plain Henry, as if he’s just a man, not
this huge figure in the history. She humanizes them, putting them in the most ordinary light
possible, unlike other historical novel writers who present the characters as pompous,
extraordinary figures.
Wolf Hall ultimately stands as an original piece of work, making Hilary Mantel one of
the greatest historical novel writers. The novel is clean and simple, but brilliant through the
use of everyday-language, important figures placed in the shoes of ordinary characters and
the humor, which doesn’t let the reader to get bored. The novel presents different realities of
different times, in relation with the historical period it takes part in or makes reference to. The
author thus makes the reader ponder over the events that occur and the characters who are
shaped in a particular situation related to a certain age or period of time.
The historical novel has increased in popularity in the last decades among the readers
and the writers alike. We are curious about the past, we want to know the intrigues of the
palace and that means speculating from time to time or maybe exaggerating some events in
order to make them more interesting. That doesn’t mean it diminishes the quality of the book.
Ultimately it is the work of a storyteller, not a historian and his job is to tell a story appealing
to the general public, be it a specialized one or just common people who enjoy reading.
 Bibliography

Early Journal Content, Michael Williams, Opportunities in Historical Fiction, The Catholic
Historical Review, Vol. 8, Nr. 3, 1922
Holton, Robert, Jarring Witnesses: Modern Fiction and the Representation of History,
Edinburgh University Press, 2006
Hutcheon, Linda, A Poetics of Postmodernism, Routledge, 2004
Mantel, Hilary, Interview: ”Booker winner Hilary Mantel on dealing with history in fiction”,
The Guardian, 2009
Mantel, Hilary, Q&A
Mantel, Hilary, Wolf Hall, Fourth Estate, 2010
Matthews, Brander, The Historical Novel and Other Essays, New York, Charles Scribner’s
Son, 1901