Richard II in the early chronicles 9783111392103, 9783111029610

Citation preview

STUDIES IN ENGLISH Volume

LITERATURE

LXXIX

RICHARD II IN THE EARLY CHRONICLES by

LOUISA DESAUSSURE DULS

1975 MOUTON THE H A G U E • P A R I S

© Copyright 1975 in The Netherlands Mouton &Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 73-80355

Printed in The Netherlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction I.

Richard's Behavior during the Peasants' Revolt

II.

Richard's Defiant Dealings with Parliament and the

7 13

Gloucester Party, 1386-1388

29

III. Richard's Actions against the Gloucester Party in 1397 IV.

71

The Exiling of Hereford and Norfolk and the Sequestration of the Lancastrian Estate

98

V.

The Fall of Richard II

112

VI.

The Humiliation, Death, and Burial of Richard II . . . .

155

VII. Reports of the King's Being Alive in Scotland after 1400

191

VIII. Reflection in Sixteenth-Century Literature of Early Chronicle Ambiguity about the Reign of Richard II

198

Appendix A. Description of Chronicle Sources

204

Appendix B. Alphabetical Listing of Chronicles by "Schools" .

.

248

Bibliography

254

Index

261

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this book is to present, not the historic Richard II, but the divergent traditions of Richard that developed chiefly from the chronicle literature of the later fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries. When one turns to the portrait of Richard II given by Shakespeare, for example, he naturally seeks some explanation for the ambiguity, or complexity, of character which he finds there. In the present analysis of the chronicle material about Richard, an attempt is made to give a partial explanation for this complexity by presenting the background of the three different traditions about Richard II which Shakespeare came upon in the early chronicles, or in material based on these chronicles. The three traditions are the Lancastrian view of a "wicked" tyrant, indulging in a corrupt rule for his personal advantage; the French view of a "martyr" king, exploited by a shrewd politician; and the Yorkist view, tacitly admitting the weakness of Richard's government but blackening the character of Henry IV and portraying Richard as the victim of an ambitious pretender. As these traditions are more or less contradictory and cannot be completely reconciled, Shakespeare and other Renaissance writers were unable to achieve a complete harmony in the portrayal of Richard without violating what they took to be historical truth. No scholar of Renaissance literature is in a sound position to measure the skill of sixteenth-century poet, playwright, and historian in drawing the character of Richard II unless he is familiar with the original traditions underlying the work of such men as Hall, Holinshed, and Daniel, within which the playwright and the others had to work. In order to present clearly the different versions of Richard's behavior upon which the varying traditions are based, six episodes have been chosen, representing the high points of Richard's career. The six episodes are the following: (1) the behavior of the king during

8

INTRODUCTION

the Peasants' Revolt of 1381; (2) his defiance of parliament and the Gloucester party in 1386-88; (3) Richard's action against Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick in 1397 and the death of Gloucester; (4) the exiling of Hereford and Norfolk in 1398 and the sequestration of Henry's property in 1399; (5) Richard's initial opposition to Henry ; his subsequent capture and loss of the crown; and (6) the king's humiliation, death and burial, and the reports of his being alive. What the various groups of chroniclers - hostile, friendly, indifferent, and impartial — have to say about each of these episodes will be presented in this book, and the contrasts in their points of view will be sharply drawn. The histories used in this analysis include all the major English and French chronicles composed in the late fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries that are important for the reign of Richard II. They are described in Appendix A.

B R I E F B I O G R A P H I C A L S K E T C H O F R I C H A R D II

For the convenience of the reader, a brief biography of the king will be given in the form of a table of important dates in Richard's career. Before the insertion of the table, it will be interesting to quote the following description of Richard II from MS Reg. 13 c l fol. 117 b , which is quite similar to the portrait of the king found in the Monk of Evesham's Vita Ricardi, pp. 169-170: King Richard was of the common stature, his hair yellowish, his face fair and rosy, rather round than long, and sometimes flushed; abrupt and somewhat stammering in his speech, capricious in his manners, and too apt to prefer the recommendations of the young, to the advice of the elder, nobles. He was prodigal in his gifts, extravagantly splendid in his entertainment and dress, timid as to war, very passionate toward his domestics, haughty and too much devoted to voluptuousness. So fond of late hours, that he would sometimes sit up all night drinking. Heavily taxing his people, scarcely any year passed in which he did not get grants of fifteenths or half-fifteenths, under colour of foreign purposes, which were consumed as soon as they reached his treasury. Yet there were many laudable features in his character: he loved religion and the clergy, he encouraged architecture, he built the church of Westminster almost entirely, and left much property by his will to finish what he had begun. He founded the Carthusian Monastery near Coventry, and the preaching friars near his manor of Langley, to pray especially for the repose of the soul of his consort Queen Anne; and by his will bequeathed considerable

INTRODUCTION

9

sums to the Church of Westminster for the celebration of his anniversary in times to come. It may be added to this description that Richard encouraged not only architecture (he rebuilt Westminster Hall, in addition to the Abbey church), but also music and literature; he rewarded the poet and chronicler Froissart with rich gifts for a romance presented to him; he also patronized both Chaucer and Gower for a time. And — crowning achievement of a dilettante — he invented the handkerchief ("parvis peciis factis ad liberandum domino regi ad portandum in manu sua pro naso suo tergendo et m u n d a n d o " : M. V. Clarke, Fourteenth Century Studies, p. 117). Though the manuscript quoted above does not mention it, one of the chief traits of the king was his intense and loyal devotion t o his friends. Touching testimony to the strength of his affection can be seen in his bringing back to England for honorable burial the body of his close friend, Robert de Vere, three years after the duke had died in exile (Annates Ricardi, pp. 184-185). Perhaps one of the most notable characteristics of the king was that he had an impulsive and unsteady temperament, a fact that accounts for the spurts of action which marked the pattern of his behavior throughout his life, such as when he suddenly announced in 1389 that he would assume personally the regimen of his kingdom (Otterbourne, Chronica Regum Angliae, p. 177).

T A B L E O F I M P O R T A N T D A T E S IN T H E C A R E E R O F R I C H A R D II

1367 -

Jan. 6, Richard is born in St. Andrew's Abbey, Bordeaux, France, t o Edward the Black Prince and Joan, "the Fair Maid of K e n t " , widow of Thomas Holland, earl of Kent.

1371 -

November, Edward of Angouleme, elder brother of Richard, dies.

1372 -

January, Richard is taken to England.

1376 -

June 8, Black Prince dies.

-

June 25, Richard, upon insistence of the Commons, is brought into parliament " t h a t they might see and honour him as the very heir-apparent".

10

INTRODUCTION

-

Nov. 20, he is created prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall, and earl of Chester.

1377 -

April (at feast of St. George), Richard is made Knight of the Garter.

-

June 21, his grandfather, Edward III, dies.

-

July 16, Richard is crowned king.

1381 - June, peasants rise in revolt. 1382 -

Jan. 14, Richard marries Anne of Bohemia, daughter of Charles IV of Bohemia, Holy Roman Emperor.

1385 -

summer, Richard leads expedition to Scotland, occupies Edinburgh.

1386 -

August, Princess Joan, Richard's mother, dies. October, the "Wonderful Parliament" against the king's wishes dismisses the chancellor, Michael de la Pole, and appoints a Commission of governance.

1387 - Aug. 25, at Nottingham, Richard gets opinion from justiciars that dismissal of crown officer without royal consent and' appointment of Commission infringe on royal prerogative and are unlawful, that instigators of such acts are liable to treason. -

Dec. 20, royal forces under Robert de Vere are intercepted on march from Chester to London and defeated at Radcot Bridge by Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester; Richard, earl of Arundel; Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick; Henry Bolingbroke, earl of Derby; and Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham.

1388 -

Feb. 3, Richard, under pressure, convenes parliament ("Merciless Parliament"); favorites of the king — de la Pole, de Vere, Alexander Neville, archbishop of York — are sentenced to death and loss of property as traitors; but, since they are absent, they are condemned to perpetual exile. The archbishop's sentence is commuted to loss of temporalities and confiscation of goods; Robert Tresilian, chief justice, Nicholas Brembre, former mayor of London, and Simon Burley, vice-chamberlain, are executed as traitors.

1389-

May 3, Richard asserts he will personally undertake the

INTRODUCTION

11

regimen of the kingdom; begins what turns out to be an eight-year period of comparatively peaceful government. 1394 - June 7, Queen Anne dies; Richard orders at least partial destruction of the royal manor of Shene, where she died. 1394-5 - Oct. 2 - May 1, Richard leads successful expedition to Ireland; returns to suppress uprising of Lollards. 1396 - ca. Nov. 1, Richard marries Isabella, seven-year-old daughter of Charles VI of France; twenty-eight-year treaty of peace with France is obtained as part of marriage arrangements. 1397 -

July, Richard suddenly arrests Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick.

-

September, he convenes parliament, which condemns the three magnates to death as traitors; Gloucester dies in Calais, Arundel is beheaded, and Warwick's sentence is commuted to exile.

1398 -

Sept. 16, Bolingbroke and Mowbray are sentenced to exile.

1399 -

Feb. 3, John of Gaunt, eldest uncle of the king and father of Henry Bolingbroke, dies.

-

March, the Lancastrian inheritance is sequestered by the crown.

-

May, Richard leads a second expedition to Ireland.

-

July, he is recalled to England by news that Henry has returned for his inheritance.

-

Aug. 19, he is captured by Henry at Flint and imprisoned in the Tower.

-

Sept. 29, Richard resigns his crown.

-

Sept. 30, he is formally deposed by parliament.

1400 -

Feb. 14, Richard dies in Pontefract Castle.

TABLE OF CHANGING TITLES

The following table has been prepared to make clear the chronology of title changes of the figures who played prominent roles during Richard's reign. This table is intended to help the reader identify a

12

INTRODUCTION

person who has become familiar under one title and is later referred to under a different title. Arundel, Thomas (1353-1414)

bishop of Ely, 1374-88; archbishop of York, 1388-96; archbishop of Canterbury, 1397; replaced in 1398; restored in 1399. chancellor, 1386-89; 1391-96.

Edmund of Langley (1341-1402) (uncle of Richard)

earl of Cambridge from 1362; duke of York from 1385.

Edward of York (1373-1415) (son of Edmund of Langley)

earl of Rutland from 1390; duke of Albemarle (Aumerle) from Sept., 1397; deprived of dukedom by Henry IV.

Henry of BoUngbroke (1367-1413) (eldest son of John of Gaunt)

-

earl of Derby from 1377; duke of Hereford from Sept., 1397; Henry IV from Oct., 1399.

Holland, John (ca. 1352-1400) (half-brother of Richard)

eaxl of Huntingdon from 1387 ; duke of Exeter from Sept. , 1397.

Holland, Thomas (1374-1400) (nephew of Richard)

earl of Kent from 1397; duke Surrey from Sept., 1397.

of

Mowbray, Thomas (ca. 1366-1399)

-

earl of Nottingham f r o m 1383; duke of Norfolk from Sept., 1397.

Pole, Michael de la (ca. 1330-1389)

-

chancellor, 1383-86; earl of Suffolk from 1385.

Thomas of Woodstock (1355-1397) (uncle of Richard)

-

earl of Buckingham from 1377; duke of Gloucester from 1385.

Vere, Robert de (1362-1392)

earl of Oxford from 1371; marquis of Dublin from 1385; duke of Ireland from 1386.

I RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

From his accession in 1377 t o that remarkable day in 1389 when he dramatically assumed personal responsibility for his government, Richard II figured in only t w o series of events which bulk large in early chronicle literature and later received extended treatment from sixteenth-century historians: the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 and the dissension between the king and his lords from 1386 through 1388. This chapter and the following one will point up the contradictory chronicle versions of the king's behavior in these two difficult crises of his minority. 1 Most of the major chronicles describe the following incidents significant for an analysis of Richard's behavior during the insurrection: ( l ) t h e rebels' request that the king come in person to confer with them at Blackheath; (2) Richard's deportment when the insurgents invested the Tower; (3) the interview with the commons at Mile End; and (4) the king's action in the Wat Tyler incident at Smithfield. The narratives differ somewhat in factual detail and widely as to the degree of courage and virile leadership that can be attributed to the fourteen-year-old king on these occasions. Particularly in connection with Richard's behavior at Smithfield, the chroniclers are also concerned with the sincerity of the king; some emphasize his cunning and vindictiveness in dealing with the peasants, while others tend to mitigate these aspects of his character by stressing his initial gestures of mercy.

i "Minority" is used here to cover the whole period during which Richard was forced to govern by the advice of a Commission appointed by Parliament, though this period extended beyond his twenty-first birthday.

14

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE P E A S A N T S ' R E V O L T L A N C A S T R I A N D E T R A C T O R S ' VIEW O F

RICHARD

D U R I N G THE P E A S A N T S ' R E V O L T

The most unflattering accounts of Richard during the revolt of the commons are recorded by two of his bitterest detractors among the chroniclers: Walsingham, in his Historia Anglicana, and the Monk of Evesham, in his Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi II. According to Walsingham, the king did not comply with the rebels' request to confer with them in person when they were encamped at Blackheath near the bank of the Thames. Advised by some of his lords that he should hold the conference and by others that he should not do so, Richard acquiesced in the counsel of the latter, and less manly, of the two groups. 2 The insurgents were angered at the king's failure to come to them and moved toward London to capture the archbishop, Simon Sudbury, and the treasurer, Robert (John) Hales, who in the company of other nobles were seeking refuge in the Tower with the king. They entered the city through the connivance of sympathizing citizens and immediately invested the Tower, snatching supplies brought up for the king's party and threatening to kill Richard if he did not open the doors. 3 Walsingham gives an ugly picture of Richard in this crisis: to save his own life, he permitted the bloodthirsty mob to enter the Tower and seize his friends. 4 The ugliness of his behavior is intensified by the fact that his mother was in the Tower and exposed to the insults of the peasants, who, Walsingham says, even made jocular attempts to kiss her. 5 After the capture of Sudbury and Hales, Richard and those of his Council with him, fearing that other magnates would be killed, determined to make peace. Walsingham records at this point that the king offered charters of manumission; 6 whether this offer took place at the Tower or at Mile End, as other chroniclers say, 7 is not made clear. 2 Thomas Walsingham, Historia Series (London, 1 8 6 3 - 6 4 ) , 1 , 4 5 6 . 3 Ibid., p. 4 5 8

Anglicana,

4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 4 5 9 . 6 Ibid., p. 4 6 2 . i See, for example, the Anonimalle p. 27; Froissart, I, 6 6 0 .

ed. Henry Thomas Riley,

Chronicle,

Rolls

p. 144; Monk o f Evesham,

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

15

When the uprising did not abate after the grant of the charters, the king not so much invited as beseeched Wat Tyler, chief leader of the Kentish insurgents, to meet him at Smithfield for further conference. 8 In the midst of demanding certain changes in the charters, Tyler, who is said to have intended killing the king and burning London that night, 9 insolently tried to attack a knight in Richard's retinue (Walsingham calls him Sir John Newton); 1 0 and then, for the first time, the chronicler admits some slight courage on the part of the boy king. For, prompted by William Walworth, mayor of London, and others who were mindful of the dishonor being offered the royal soldiery, Richard, with a sudden display of bravery, ordered the mayor to arrest Tyler, though the effect such action would have on the multitude of the rebel's followers must have been obvious. Immediately Walworth obeyed and struck the rebel captain a blow; others followed suit, and Tyler fell from his horse, mortally wounded. Seeing his fall, the commons cried out that they would avenge his death and, drawing their bows, made ready to shoot. 1 1 Richard, in the face of this perilous situation, "marvelously impelled by a cleverness beyond his years and excited by boldness", rode out to the insurgents and said to them: "What is this, my men? What are you doing? You do not wish to shoot your king, do you? Do not be agitated, do not be sad over the death of the traitor and low fellow. I am your king, I am your captain and your leader; follow me into the field and you shall have anything it pleases you to ask." 1 2 They responded to his request and followed him. As soon as they were in the field outside the city, the soldiers asked permission to carry off at least one or two hundred of the heads of the rascals. But 8

Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, I, 463. The leader of the insurgents is referred to as "Jack Straw" by three Lancastrian chronicles - The Brut (Cambridge MS Kk 112), Part II, pp. 336-338; Adam of Usk's Chronicon, pp. 138-139; and The Great Chronicle of London, p. 45. The Continuation of Knighton's Chronicon, II, 131-138, notes that Wat Tyler's name had been changed to "Jack Straw". 9 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, I, 463. 10 According to Knighton, II, 137, instead of attacking a knight, Tyler spoke to the king with menacing words and seized the bridle of his horse. • 1 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, I, 465. 12 Ibid.

16

RICHARD S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

the king refused their request, saying: " ' . . . many of them led by fear have followed the crowd and it could happen in this way, perhaps, that those who had done no sin would suffer and guilty ones would enjoy exemption from punishment' " . 1 3 The implication of courage and "social conscience" conveyed in this portion of Walsingham's report on the Smithfield incident is quickly erased by the chronicler, however, who goes on to say that the king's conciliatory speech to the peasants was simply a contrivance to get them away from Smithfield. 14 He devotes much space to describing Richard's indignation toward the rioters as the revolt dragged on and to stressing his vindictiveness in attending personally the execution of many of the rebel leaders. Indeed, Walsingham quite destroys any intimation of social sensitivity in the words he quotes from the king's reply to the peasants when they asked to be "equal in liberty to the lords": " 'You have been and are villeins; in bondage you shall remain not as up to now, but incomparably more debased.' " 1 S In summary, Walsingham does not concede to Richard the courage to go in person to the interview requested by the rebels, accuses him of the blackest disloyalty to his friends in the Tower, fails to mention the show of manhood at Mile End reported by other chroniclers, grudgingly admits his boldness at Smithfield but even in this stresses the cunning of his action. To Walsingham's disparaging account, the Monk of Evesham's Vita 16 adds other depreciatory remarks. The chronicler begins with a is ibid., p. 466. 14 Ibid., p. 465. Of course, Richard's warmest admirers could hardly consider him sinccrein his promise to grant the peasants whatever they asked. In fact, as Steel says, his education and training would virtually have precluded such sympathy for the masses; and in the events of later years he certainly does not show sensitivity to the grievances of the poor. (See Steel, pp. 81-28.) However, his later disavowal of his promise to the peasants might have resulted from his having acted beyond his authority in the first place rather than from motives of insincerity. As Kriehn says, " . . . how could the king legally dispose of the rights and property of his people without the consent of Parliament, annul laws which it had formerly enacted, or decree the execution of men without legal trial? "(See Kriehn, American Historical Review, VII, 284.) 15 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 18. 16 Kriehn holds that this Evesham chronicle is especially valuable for 1381 because it is almost independent of other known chronicles for that year and probably depends on a no longer extant contemporary London source. (See below, Appendix A, p. 211.)

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

17

scathing preamble in which he blames the avarice of the king and his ministers for the rise of the revolt, saying that the king had followed the advice of certain ministers who, "willing to please the king and to displease God", had offered, for a consideration, to collect taxes from the commons beyond what had already been yielded. 1 7 When the indignant commons, one hundred thousand strong, gathered on Blackheath and demanded to see the king, who had fled in fear to the Tower, Richard, the monk says, embarked on the Thames to interview them; but, persuaded by the archbishop and the treasurer, who were doubtful of what the frenzied mob intended toward him, he retreated to the shouts of "treason, treason". 1 8 Then the rebels, having gathered at Mile End, sent for the king again, threatening that, if he did not respond at once, they themselves would come to the Tower and would not let him escape alive. So Richard, afraid to resist, rode with his retinue to Mile End, "fearing mightily". 19 The implication is that, as the king left the Tower, a mob, already gathered in front of it from Mile End or elsewhere, rushed into the fortress and seized the archbishop and the treasurer. 20 While violence was going on in the Tower, the king was negotiating with the rebels at Mile End. The Monk of Evesham, alone among the chroniclers, gives a dim picture of Richard's courage here: When the Lord King had come to the aforesaid place, as he had been commanded, he appeared like a lamb among wolves (indeed he was fearing very much for his very life), [and] he humbly entreated the people standing about. 2 1 The people, according to the Monk of Evesham, looking upon the king with wild aspect, demanded things prejudicial to the crown, the 17 Monk of Evesham, Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi Secundi, Angliae Regis, ed. Thomas Hearne (Oxford, 1729), p. 23. This chronicle will frequently be referred to in the text of this book as the Vita. • 8 Ibid., pp. 24-25. Another Lancastrian chronicler, the continuator of Eulogium, III, 351-354, says the archbishop believed the peasants intended to carry the king throughout the country as a symbol of their authority, if Monk of Evesham, p. 27. 20 One of the unsolved mysteries of the Great Rebellion, as Oman indicates, is why the drawbridge was not raised and the portcullis lowered when the king left the Tower to go to Mile End. The best explanation Oman can give for this phenomenon is "by mere mismanagement, or to show an ostentatious confidence in the people". (See Oman, The Great Revolt of 1381, p. 65.) 21 Monk of Evesham, p. 27.

18

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

kingdom, the lords, and the church; and they said that Richard should not leave till he had granted their requests. Furthermore, they pointed out that the kingdom had been badly ruled and that, from now on, it should be governed by them. The king, seeing he could not escape in any manner, assented to their requests and granted letters patent. And then, but not until he had received permission from the people, he withdrew to Westminster. 2 2 The next day, returning from Westminster through the suburbs of London, the king found the Smithfield square filled with rebels and Wat Tyler ready to demand drastic "corrections" to the letters patent. The Vita proceeds with the usual story of the wounding of Tyler by the mayor and then records the king's winning over of the rebels as if it were due, not to a sudden accession of courage on the king's part, but to the fact that God willed it so. The Monk of Evesham gives the words of the king in much briefer form than Walsingham did: " 'I am your leader. Follow me.' " 2 3 Then he pictures Richard's followers as immediately beating the peasants to earth so that they no longer dared raise their heads, and he adds typically that they were quelled "with the help of the Lord". 24 The Vita, like the Historia Anglicana, stresses the duplicity of Richard's concessions to the peasants by recording how he took part personally in the punishments, but in this vindictive undertaking the monk at last concedes the king some courage: "The Lord King with great fortitude went in his own person to Essex, and quieted those regions." 25 Other Lancastrian chronicles confirm the disparaging portrait of Richard given in Historia Anglicana and in the Vita Ricardi. 2 6 The hostile tone of these chronicles may be exemplified by the unflatter22 Ibid., p. 28. 23 Ibid. 24 ¡bid. 25 Ibid; p. 32. 26 See Chronicon Angliae, ed. Edward Maunde Thompson, Rolls Series (London, 1874), pp. 285-299; Continuation of the Polychronicon, in Appendix III, Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, monachi Cestrensis, together with the English Translations of John Trevisa and of an Unknown Writer of the Fifteenth Century, ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1882), VIII, 455-459 (this chronicle is referred to in the footnotes as Polychronicon, VIII); Continuation of Eulogium, in Eulogium (Historiarum sive Temporis), ed. Frank Scott Haydon, Rolls Series (London, 1863), III, 351-354 (this chronicle is referred to in the footnotes as Eulogium, III); Continuation of Knighton's

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

19

ing picture o f Richard given in Book I of John Gower's Vox Clamantis, which is an account of the Great Rebellion poetically described under various metaphors. Gower bewails the disgraceful lack of leadership when the insurgent m o b rushed upon London (New Troy): N o n hie Palamades superat, neque nobilis Aiax, Nec regimen gladius Agamenentis habet. 2 7 (Here no Palamades excels, no noble Ajax, Nor does the sword of Agamemnon have any power.) A n d he laments that the king (Priam) was not able to save the archbishop (Helenus) in the attack upon the Tower: N o n Heleno potuit Priamus succurrere Regis Imperii set eo tempore iura silent. 2 8 (Priam could not save Helenus; Indeed at this time the laws of the King's government are silent.) Disregarding the part Richard played in subduing the m o b at Smithfield, Gower says that only one person, the mayor, was moved to high deeds: Chronicon, Bk. V of Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon, monachi Leycestrensis , ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1895), II, 131-138 (this chronicle is referred to in the footnotes as Knighton's Chronicon, II); Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in the Brut, or the Chronicles of England, ed. Friedrick W. D. Brie, (= Early English Text Society, Original Series, No. 136) (London, 1908), Part II, pp. 336-338 (the various continuations of the Brut used in this book are referred to in the footnotes as the Brut, Part II); Adam of Usk, Chronicon Adae de Usk, ed. with an English translation by Edward Maunde Thompson (2nd ed.; London, 1904), pp. 138-139 (in this book citations are made to the English translations of Adam's Chronicon)-, and The Great Chronicle of London (Guildhall Library MS 3313), ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London, 1938), p. 45. Thomas Walsingham's Ypodigma Neustriae, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rolls Series (London, 1876) devotes one paragraph to the Peasants' Revolt (p. 385), but for fuller treatment refers the reader to the author's Chronica Majora, now lost. 27 John Gower, Vox Clamantis, Liber Primus, lines 987-988, in The Complete Works of John Gower, The Latin Works, ed. G. C. Macaulay (Oxford, 1902), IV, 49. 28 Gower, Vox Clamantis, Liber Primus, lines 1155-1156, in The Complete Works, IV, 54.

20

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

Vnus erat Maior Guillelmus, quem probitatis Spiritus in mente cordis ad alta mouet. 2 9 (The Mayor William was the one whom The spirit of uprightness in the judgment of his heart moved to high deeds.) Indeed, though Gower had originally acquitted the youthful Richard of responsibility in causing the Peasants' Revolt, he came to believe in later years that Richard had begun his course of tyrannical government even by 1381 and that his final downfall had resulted from his failure to recognize the insurrection as a chastisement by God, warning him to reform his ways. 30

THE PRE-YORKIST ENGLISH AND FRENCH

SYMPATHIZERS'

P O R T R A Y A L OF THE KING'S ACTIONS DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

It must have been confusing to the scholars and literary men of the sixteenth century to turn from the denigrating accounts of the Lancastrian school of historians to the flattering story told by the pre-Yorkist English and French sympathizers. In the latter, the young king emerges as a shining example of the chivalric ideal of the medieval king — courageous, confident, sacrificing his safety for that of his country. 31

29 Gower, Vox Clamantis, Liber Primus, lines 1859-1860, in The Complete Works, IV, 73. 30 See the Latin prose which forms the transition from Vox Clamantis, Liber Septimus, to Cronica Tripertita, Prima Pars, in The Complete Works, IV, 313; see also Macaulay's note on this prose section, IV, 405. 31 With the conception of the bravery and quick-wittedness of Richard during the insurrection many modern historians and biographers are inclined to agree. Steel, for example, says of the lords and nobles who were faced with the roaring mob of revolutionists: "The fact remains that . . . not one could keep his wits about him with the exception of the fourteen-year-old boy whose political education they had studiously neglected." (See Steel, p. 79.) Henri Wallon, Richard's nineteenth-century French biographer, states: "The young king went on to show in this crisis a decisiveness, a presence of mind and a forcefulness worthy of the blood of the Black Prince." (See Henri Wallon, Richard II [Paris, 1868], II, 64.) Oman, speaking of the king's reaction to the decision that he should meet the rebels at Mile End, says: "Richard fully understood his danger,

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

21

Most important of the histories giving sympathetic treatment to Richard's behavior during the uprising is the Anonimalle Chronicle. 32 According to this account, the king took the initiative in dealing with the insurgents gathered at Blackheath. Three times he sent messengers to them in arranging to meet them on the banks of the Thames. When he arrived by barge at Greenwich, the chancellor and the treasurer temporarily dissuaded him from landing, upon which the commons sent him a petition requesting the heads of the Duke of Lancaster and fifteen other lords. This request the king would not grant; wherefore the commons asked that he would come to speak to them. "And he said that he would gladly do so." Again the chancellor and the treasurer demurred, advising that the rioters should be told to come to Windsor the following Monday. "Before Richard could take action either way, a knight, arriving in haste and crying to the king to wait, reported: he had heard from his servant, who had been in the hands of the rebels on that day, that if he [the king] came to them all the land should be lost, for they would never let him loose, but would take him with them all round England, and that they would make him grant them all their demands, and that their purpose was to slay all the lords and ladies of great renown, and all the archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors, monks and canons, parsons and vicars, by the advice and counsel of the aforesaid Sir John Wraw. 3 3 The king then withdrew to the Tower. This is the only chronicle that gives the king so strong a reason for withdrawing from his first attempted interview. The Anonimalle description of the proceedings in the Tower on the day after the Thames episode pictures Richard as capable of bravery, self-forgetfulness, resourcefulness, and the strongest kind of independent action:

but surprised all the followers by the eager courage with which he resolved to face it." (See Oman, The Great Revolt of 1381, p. 62.) 32 The Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333 to 1381, ed.V. H. Galbraith, Publications of the University of Manchester, No. CLXXV, Historical Series, No. XLV (Manchester, 1927). Modern scholars consider the Anonimalle Chronicle a source o f the highest authority for the Peasants' Revolt. (See below, Appendix A, pp. 228-229.) 33 Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 140.

22

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

And he called all his lords about him to his chamber, and asked counsel what they should do in such necessity. And none of them could or would give him any counsel, wherefore the young king said he would send to the mayor of the city, to bid him order the sheriffs and aldermen to have it cried round their wards that every man between the age of fifteen and sixty, on pain of life and members, should go next morning (which was Friday) to Mile End, and meet him there at seven o'clock. He did this in order that all the commons who were encamped around the Tower might be induced to abandon the siege, and come to Mile End to see him and hear him, so that those who were in the Tower could get off safely whither they would, and save themselves. 34 But, without waiting to see whether his summons to the commons to meet him at Mile End would be obeyed or not, the king made another attempt that day (Thursday, June 13) to persuade the commons to go home. He went up into a turret of the Tower and had it proclaimed that he would pardon the people's offenses if they would withdraw. They cried out that they would not leave before they captured the traitors in the Tower and received charters to free themselves from serfdom. So Richard had a bill drawn up, in their sight, requiring the people to return home and put their grievances in writing; he promised that he and his Council would then provide "such remedy as shall be profitable both to him and to them, and to all the kingdom". 35 When the peasants rejected this order, Richard came down from the turret and called his lords into council; but again the lords left the burden of decision to him: " . . . they knew not how they should counsel him, and all were wondrous abashed". 36 According to the Anonimalle chronicler, Richard went to Mile End the next day, and his behavior there was characterized by dignity, assurance, and good sense. The commons received him kneeling. He then, having heard their requests, in entire command of the situation had them draw themselves out in two lines and proclaimed that he 34 ¡bid., p. 143. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., p. 144. Despite the evidence of the chronicle, Kriehn doubts that a boy of fifteen could have taken the leadership in such a crisis; he suggests that, more probably, the king was directed in his actions by the experienced members of the royal council and that his decisions may have been influenced by Princess Joan, his mother. (See Kriehn, American Historical Review, VII, 275.) Froissart, as shown later in this chapter, does not mention the leadership of the king but says that William Walworth and the Earl of Salisbury led the councils.

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS'REVOLT

23

would grant them manumission and the right to catch all traitors in England, provided such were brought safely to the king for trial by process of law. 37 The sentence following the above statement in the Anonimalle narrative makes it clear that, when the atrocities in the Tower were committed, the king was at Mile End and not in the Tower, as Historia Anglicana and its imitators say, 3 8 and that the attack took place not immediately after his departure from the Tower but some time later after the Mile End conference had reached its culmination: " . . . under the colour of this grant [just made by King Richard ] the said Wat Tyler and the commons took their way to the Tower, to seize the Archbishop and the others, the King being at Mile End". 3 9 At Smithfield, according to the chronicler, Richard behaved with restraint and courage. Even when Wat Tyler grabbed his hand and shook it roughly in free camaraderie, saying jovially, " 'Brother, be of good comfort and joyful, for you shall have . . . praise from the commons even more than you have yet had, and we shall be good companions' ", the king preserved his poise and answered only: " 'Why will you not go back to your own country' "? 4 0 To the insurgent chiefs sweeping demands for equality of all people " 'save only the king' " and for the dispossession of the temporalities of the church, Richard responded easily that the peasants "should have all that he could fairly grant, reserving only for himself the regality of his crown". 4 1 During all this time, Anonimalle records, no lord dared to give any answer to the commons, except the king himself. The picture of Richard's courage at the climax of the interview is enhanced by the record that, after the wounding of Tyler, the commons actually began to shoot; and so, the implication is, it was literally into a rain of arrows that the-boy-king spurred his horse when he commanded the mob to come to him at Clerkenwell Fields. The king's retinue were so aware of the danger during this emergency that most of the knights and squires of his household left him "for fear that they had of this affray". 4 2

37 38

39 40 41 42

Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 144. See above, p. 14. Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 145. Ibid., p. 147. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 148-149.

24

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

Richard's benevolent concern for the beaten peasants is heightened by this chronicler, too, for the king not only granted the insurgents mercy but also " . . . ordained two knights to conduct the rest of them, namely the Kentishmen, through London and over London Bridge, without doing them harm, so that each of them could go to his own home". 4 3 In summary, then, according to the Anonimalle Chronicle, the behavior of Richard during the Great Revolt was altogether admirable; he expressed gladness to land at Greenwich at the peasants' request and was deterred from doing so only by evidence of treachery; he led the councils in the Tower and, far from sacrificing his friends, he undertook, on his own initiative, the hazardous journey to Mile End to give the inmates of the Tower a chance for escape; and he saved the situation at Smithfield by riding boldly into the flying arrows of the angry mob, many of his attendants being afraid to follow. 44 Froissart, though more impartial than the author of the Anonimalle Chronicle, yet presents on the whole a favorable portrait of Richard. He pictures the king at the interview from the Thames as a man resolutely performing what was required of him by the Council. Despite the wild shouting of the rebels upon the sight of him, "as if all the devils in hell had been in their company", he called out that he had come to see what they wanted. But when he was asked to land, Salisbury replied for him to the rebels: " 'Gentlemen, you are not properly dressed, nor in a fit condition for the king to talk with you' ". And the king was rowed back to the Tower. 45 There, Richard still not taking any initiative, a council was held at which Mayor Walworth headed a party advising an attack upon the peasants that night while they slept in the streets of London. The Earl 43 Ibid., p. 149. 44 The Monk of Westminster, another pre-Yorkist English chronicler favorable to Richard, seems to follow partially the London source used by the Anonimalle chronicler (see below, Appendix A, p. 227); he passes over the Thames-Tower episode, but repeats the story of the king's initiative at Mile End and his gallant leadership at Smithfield. See the Monk of Westminster, a Continuation of John Malvern's Continuation of the Polychronicon (Cambridge MS, Corpus Christi, No. 197), in Polychronicon, monachi Cestrensis, . . ., ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1886), IX, 3-6. 45 Sir John Froissart, Chronicles of England, France, Spain, and the Adjoining Countries, from the Latter Part of the Reign of Edward II to the Coronation of Henry IV, trans, from the French Editions by Thomas Johnes (London, 1839), I, 658.

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

25

of Salisbury headed another group who urged that the king meet the rebels and make them fair promises. The latter strategy won support, and on Friday morning, June 15, Froissart says, the king ordered the rebels to meet him at Mile End. 4 6 On the way to the rendezvous, according to Johnes' interpretation in translating Froissart, the Earl of Kent and Sir John Holland, Richard's half-brothers, stole away from the king's company for fear of facing the wrath of the rebels. 47 But Richard seems to have grown in courage and assurance as he rode along. For, upon his arrival at Mile End, where sixty thousand men waited, "he instantly advanced into the midst of them, saying in a pleasant manner, 'My good people, I am your king and your lord: what is it you want? and what do you wish to say to me?' " 4 8 In the above words, Froissart gives the unique account of Richard's daring conduct at Mile End. The request of the peasants for freedom from villeinage the king granted so graciously that they were instantly appeased and declared: " 'It is well said; we do not wish for more.' " 4 9 Adroitly, in pledge of his good faith, Richard promised one of his banners to the men of each county there represented. And so the assembly, full of sweetness and light, broke up. 5 0 At Smithfleld, too, Froissart pictures the king as acting courageously, but not independently of the advice of his lords. To the insolent Tyler, who had given his men an order to kill the nobles and capture the king upon a signal from him, Richard returned levelheaded answers, as shown in the conversation reported by Froissart: Tyler]: "King, dost thou see all those men there?" King]: "Yes, why dost thou ask?" Tyler]: "Because they are all under my command, and have sworn by their faith and loyalty to do whatever I shall order." [King]: "Very well, I have no objections to it." [Tyler]: "And thinkest thou, king, that those people and as many more who are in the city, also under my command, ought to depart without having had thy letters? Oh no, we will carry them with us." 46 Ibid; pp. 659-660. 47 Ibid., p. 660. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. so Kriehn suggests that Froissart's story of the king's courage at Mile End may be an example of the chronicler's idealization of his subject under the influence of his avowed moral and political purpose: to give examples of noble and honorable adventures in arms. (See Kriehn, American Historical Review, VII, 262-265.)

26

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

[King]: "Why, so has been ordered, and they will be deliverd out one after the other: but, friend, return to thy companions, and tell them to depart from London." 51 Upon this, Tyler picked a quarrel with a squire of the king and threatened him. The king ordered Walworth to arrest the rebel leader, but the mayor, instead, struck him with a scimitar. The king, hearing the dismayed cries of the multitude and seeing them draw up in a sort of battle-array, with bows bent, acted with decision and fortitude, for, when Tyler was on the ground, he [the king] left his attendants, ordering not one to follow him. He rode up to these rebellious fellows, who were advancing to revenge their leader's death, and said to them. "Gentlemen, what are you about? You shall have no other captain but me: I am your king: remain peaceable." 52 When Richard saw that those of the commoners inclined to peace were slipping away but that the riotous ones were remaining, he returned to his lords for advice; at their suggestion he led the rebels into the fields, where he ordered his banners and letters patent to be returned to him. Froissart reports that Richard refused to allow Sir Robert Knolles and his Londoners to attack the retreating peasants; but he spoils any picture of mercy on the king's part by quoting Richard as saying he would take ample revenge later. 53

THE Y O R K I S T S ' R E P O R T OF THE P E A S A N T S ' R E V O L T

The Yorkist chroniclers give abbreviated accounts of the Peasants' Revolt and add nothing significant to the earlier narratives. How little they are concerned with giving a favorable account of Richard, except when they can thus blacken the picture of Henry IV, can be seen by the fact that, like the late Lancastrians, neither Capgrave nor Hardyng nor the author of A Short English Chronicle mentions the courage of the king during any part of the rebellion, 54 though all give due credit 51 52 53

Froissart, I, 662. Ibid., p. 663. Ibid., pp. 663-664. 54 John Capgrave, The Chronicle of England, ed. Francis Charles Hingeston, Rolls Series (London, 1858), pp. 237-238; John Hardyng, The Chronicle, together with The Continuation, by Richard Grafton, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1812), pp. 338-339; A Short English Chronicle, in Three Fifteenth-Century

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

27

to Walworth for slaying Wat Tyler, whom the latter two authors mistakenly call "Jack Strawe". 55 T H E N O N P A R T I S A N S ' A C C O U N T OF T H E U P R I S I N G OF 1 3 8 1

Caxton and Fabyan, perhaps because they were trying to be impartial or, more probably, because they considered the matter of little importance, make no mention of either the bravery or the cowardice of the king. Both are, on the whole, mildly hostile to Richard, agreeing with Walsingham that the king was at the Tower when Sudbury and Hales were dragged out, but not going so far as to say that he permitted the rebels to enter, and agreeing with the late Lancastrians and Yorkists that Walworth, instead of Richard, should be singled out for credit at Smithfield. 56 Of these two relatively impartial chroniclers Fabyan is more clearly hostile toward Richard, for he includes a curious story which makes the king for a time almost a puppet in the hands of the rebels: "beynge enflawmyd with that presumpcion and pryde, Iacke Strawe rode vnto the Towre, where the kyngbeynge smally accompanyed of his lordis, causyd hym to ryde about some parte of the cytie, and so conueyed hym into Smythfelde". 5 7

S U M M A R Y OF THE D I V E R G E N T VIEWS OF R I C H A R D ' S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

The detractors and the sympathizers agree on only two points in connection with Richard's behavior during the first few days of the Revolt — that he granted manumission at Mile End and that he was responsible for the dispersal of the peasants at Smithfield. In all other matters they disagree, especially as to whether the king's actions were marked by cowardice and expediency or by courage and a concept of

Chronicles, ed. James Gairdner, Camden Society, New Series, No. 28 (London, 1880), p. 25. 55 Hardyng, p. 339; STiorf English Chronicle, p. 25. 56 William Caxton, Continuation of the Polychronicon, Appendix IV, in Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden . . . , ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1882), VIII, 529-530. 57 Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England and France in Two Parts, Named by Himself The Concordance of Histories, Reprinted from Pynson's Edition of 1516, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1811), p. 530.

28

RICHARD'S BEHAVIOR DURING THE PEASANTS' REVOLT

justice. On the one hand, the detractors, at their most hostile, maintain (1) that the king refused to meet the insurgents on the banks of the Thames; (2) that, in a terrified attempt to save his own life, he opened the doors of the Tower to the angry mob and let them seize the archbishop and the treasurer; (3) that he was cowed by the commons at Mile End and pusillanimously granted their requests; and (4) that, at the suggestion of the lords, he guilefully led the rebels from Smithfield to the fields outside London, where they were crushed by royal soldiers. On the other hand, the sympathizers, at their friendliest, record (1) that Richard himself arranged the meeting with the peasants on the Thames; (2) that he cleared a way for the archbishop and the treasurer to escape from the Tower by ordering the threatening mob to meet him at Mile End; (3) that he fearlessly advanced into the midst of the insurgents at Mile End and granted letters patent so graciously that most of the peasants withdrew; and (4) that, on his own initiative, he manfully rode into a fall of arrows to lead the insurgents into the fields, where he forbade their slaughter. The important relatively unbiased accounts are given by Froissart and Fabyan. The former is not unsympathetic to Richard; true, he stresses the young king's reliance on his counselors during the Thames, Tower, and Smithfield crises, but he gives the sole account of Richard's high courage at Mile End and pictures him as courageous at Smithfield. Fabyan is more unfriendly toward the king; while he does not condemn him in any of the contacts with the peasants, he also fails to select points for praise, as the favorable writers do. Such was the contradictory nature of the material that Hall, Holinshed, and other historians of the sixteenth century had to deal with when they set about recording for their contemporaries the deeds of King Richard in the "Hurling Time".

II RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT AND THE GLOUCESTER PARTY, 1386-1388

Five years after the Peasants' Revolt had subsided, the king found himself enmeshed again in a series of crucial events, involving this time the struggle to maintain his royal prerogative against the encroachment of the greater lords of the kingdom. During this period, later called by some historians the "first tyranny", Richard was still young and inexperienced, only nineteen at the beginning of the "Wonderful Parliament", 1 in October, 1386, and a few months past his twentyfirst birthday when the "Merciless Parliament" 2 brought the dissension to a close in June, 1388. The trouble seems to have been due to the exclusion from the king's confidence of such great magnates of the realm as Richard's youngest uncle, Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester; Richard, earl of Arundel; and Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick; and, conversely, to the strong influence exerted upon the king by his ministers and other advisers, especially by the chancellor of England, Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk; the chamberlain, Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford and marquis of Ireland; and the vice-chamberlain, Sir Simon Burley, tutor of Richard's early youth. Specific targets of the magnates' indignation included the ministers' policy of temporary truce with France, the impoverishment 1 The name comes from the title of a brief fourteenth-century chronicle by Thomas Favent, Historia siue Narracio de Modo et Forma Mirabilis Parliamenti apud Westmonasterium Anno Domini Millesimo CCCLXXXVJ. It is obvious, however, from the contents of the chronicle, that Favent meant the sobriquet "mirabilis" to apply to the parliament of early 1388. 2 The name is taken from the following clause in Knighton's Chronicon (p. 249): " . . . that parliament was called the parliament without mercy". "Without mercy" is appropriate because of the large number of convictions in this parliament; sentence of death was pronounced upon at least seventeen persons.

30

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

of the royal exchequer, and the support in the royal household of a large number of foreigners (Bohemians who had accompanied Queen Anne to England upon her marriage to Richard in 1382). According to Steel, in the parliament of 1386 the lords apparently began their opposition to the ministry with an attack on the foreign policy of John of Gaunt, 3 Richard's oldest uncle, and his faction, to which de la Pole had belonged; but this soon degenerated into a personal attack upon the chancellor himself and upon the treasurer, John Fordham. When Richard came to the defense of his ministers, the struggle for power was on between the magnates on the one hand and the curialists (the king and the court party) on the other. 4 The struggle progressed through the following phases: dissension between the magnates and the king during the "Wonderful Parliament" (October through November, 1386); the actions and counteractions of Richard and the magnates from November, 1386, to February, 1388; and the proceedings of the "Merciless Parliament" (February to June, 1388).

C O R E S T O R Y O F 1 3 8 6 - 1 3 8 8 , AS T O L D IN T H E M A J O R C H R O N I C L E S

Most of the chronicles that are important for 1386-88 — and there are a number of independent accounts for this episode — agree on the following story of the major events of this period. s When parliament opened in October, 1386, the lords demanded the dismissal of de la Pole — a move to which the king was strongly opposed. Richard countered by raising de Vere to the rank of duke of Ireland. Despite the royal displeasure, the lords proceeded to dismiss de la Pole from the chancellorship and to replace him with the younger Arundel, 3 John of Gaunt himself was absent from England from 1386 to 1389, having led an expedition to Castile in order to assert his claim, through his second wife, to the throne of Castile and to win the support of Portugal for England and the Urbanists. 4 Anthony Steel, Richard II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1941), pp. 120-121. s See Knighton's Chronicon, II, 215-297; Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 148-175; Thomas Favent, Historia Siue Narracio de Modo et Forma Mirabilis Parliamenti apud Westmonasterium Anno Domini Millesimo CCCLXXXVJ, regni vero regis Ricordi Secundi post conquestum anno decimo, ed. May McKisack, Camden Miscellany, XIV; Camden Third Series, XXXVII (London, 1926), pp. 1-24; Monk of Westminster, pp. 83-183.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

31

Thomas, bishop of Ely. Next Michael de la Pole was impeached by parliament on the grounds of fraud and extortion. 6 He was punished by imprisonment in Windsor Castle and by forfeiture of his goods. The lords' next move was to appoint, with the king's consent, a commission of government. This consisted of fourteen lords and prelates, as follows: Chancellor Thomas Arundel, bishop of Ely; Richard, earl of Arundel; Thomas, duke of Gloucester; Edmund of Langley, duke of York, next to the oldest of Richard's uncles; William Courtenay, archbishop of Canterbury; Alexander Neville, archbishop of York; John Gilbert, bishop of Hereford, who had replaced Fordham as treasurer; William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester; Thomas Brantingham, bishop of Exeter; Nicholas, abbot of Waltham; Lord John Cobham; Sir Richard le Scrope; Sir John Devereux; and John Waltham, keeper of the privy seal. The Commission was to inquire into waste and excess in the expenditure of royal revenues; into money coming in - rents, profits, duties, and subsidies - and money going out - fees, wages, gifts, and grants; into the expenses and offenses of the royal household; and into offices obtained by bribery and other matters injurious to the crown. 7 After the close of the "Wonderful Parliament", Richard, upon the advice of his favorites — especially de la Pole, de Vere, and Alexander Neville — declared that the acts of that parliament were prejudicial to the royal prerogative, depriving the crown of its rightful powers. Thereupon, taking along his personal counselors, including de la Pole, de Vere, and Neville, the king set out for "remote parts" — that is, Cheshire and Wales — leaving the parliamentary Commission, except for Neville, in London. About this time Richard again favored de Vere by giving him the custody of John of Blois, heir to Charles of Blois, former claimant to the dukedom of Brittany; de Vere was permitted to sell his prisoner to the French for a large ransom. On August 25, 1387 (the twenty-fifth is the date given by the Monk of Westminster, p. 98), Richard, being at Nottingham with his 6 Dr. N. B. Lewis has attempted to show that, to some extent, at least, the charges against de la Pole were manufactured "to justify a dismissal which had been effected for other reasons", and that the chancellor was no more culpable than the whole council. (See N. B. Lewis, "Article VII of the Impeachment of Michael de la Pole in 1386", English Historical Review, XLII, 402407.) i The duties and powers of the Commission are listed in full in Knighton's Chronicon, II, 224-233, and in the Monk of Westminster, pp. 83-89.

32

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

friends, summoned Robert Tresilian, the chief justice of England, and other justiciars of the kingdom to a council there.8 The king propounded to the justiciars questions of the following nature: Were the statutes of the last parliament derogatory to the prerogative of the king? How ought they to be punished who were responsible for the enactment of these statutes and thus had tried to hinder the king from exercising his royal power? The judges replied that the ordinances were prejudicial to the king's prerogative and those responsible were deserving of capital punishment or death as traitors.9 To these decisions the justiciars set their seals in the presence of a number of witnesses, including de la Pole, de Vere, Neville, John Ripon (clerk), and John Blake. Within approximately two months after the Nottingham episode, Richard and his favorites returned to London. They were welcomed by the mayor and aldermen with great ceremony. When the king and his followers went to Westminster Abbey to worship, they were also honorably received by the clergy — the abbot and the religious of the monastery going out in procession to greet the royal party. Meanwhile, having learned of Richard's movements in northern England, the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel, and the Earl of Warwick proceeded to raise forces. In mid-November the three magnates appeared before Richard at Westminster and appealed of 8 Knighton's Chronicon says that the justices were called to council first at Shrewsbury and then at Nottingham. Besides Tresilian, the other justiciars were Robert Bealknap (chief justice of the common bench); John Holt, William Burgh, and Roger Fulthorp (puisne judges of the same); John Cary (chief baron of the exchequer, who perhaps acted at the Nottingham Council for Justice William Skipwith, too ill to attend); and John Lokton, sergeant-at-law. (See Knighton, II, 236, 258-259.) 9 Gloucester and his associates were not guilty of treason according to the Treason Act of 1352, passed during the reign of Edward III. This act did not call encroaching upon the royal prerogative an act of treason. Its provisions were that treason included the following offenses: (1) the compassing the death of the king, queen, or their eldest son; (2) the violation of the queen or the king's eldest unmarried daughter, or his son's wife; (3) the levying of war against the king in his realm; (4) adhering to the king's enemies, counterfeiting his seal on money, or importing false money; and (5) the slaying of the lord chancellor, treasurer, or judges in the discharge of their duties. Obviously the justiciars themselves were responsible for the opinion that action derogatory to the royal prerogative was treasonous. (The above summary of the Treason Act is taken from William Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, 5th ed. [Oxford, 1903], III, 536.)

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

33

treason the Earl of Suffolk, the Duke of Ireland, the Archbishop of York, the Chief Justice of England, and Sir Nicholas Brembre, formerly mayor of London. Under pressure the king set aside a day for the gathering of parliament and promised to take both the magnates and the accused under his protection until that time. Nevertheless, with the sanction of Richard, de Vere left London and went into Cheshire and Wales in order to raise troops. Michael de la Pole, Neville, and Tresilian escaped, so that, of the five accused, only Sir Nicholas Brembre remained in London. To obstruct the march of de Vere's troops to London, Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick, now joined by the Earl of Derby (Henry Bolingbroke, eldest son of John of Gaunt) and the Earl of Nottingham (Thomas Mowbray), moved with their armies to the neighborhood of Radcot Bridge. 10 Here, on December 20 (according to the chronology of the Monk of Westminster, p. 111), the magnates met and defeated de Vere's forces, which offered little resistance. De Vere himself escaped by swimming his horse across the river. Having led their army to the suburbs of London, the victorious lords were well received by the Londoners and furnished with supplies. Then Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick, Derby, and Nottingham entered the Tower of London, where Richard had taken refuge after the defeat of de Vere. Again the magnates appealed of treason the five favorites of the king and demanded their appearance before parliament. Richard acquiesced. Between the interview in the Tower and the opening of the parliament, the lords brought it about that a number of persons were removed from offices in the king's household, others were dismissed from court, and many were arrested and kept in custody until the day set for parliament. The "Merciless Parliament" began on February 3, 1388; it was held at Westminster. The five appellants - Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick, Derby, and Nottingham - appealed of treason Michael de la Pole, Robert de Vere, Alexander Neville, Robert Tresilian, and Nicholas Brembre; but, as said before, only Brembre was available since the io The site of the battle is variously given. Knighton's Chronicon (II, 252) puts it in Oxfordshire at "the bridge of Radecote, which is distant from Schepyng Norton by iv leagues"; Favent (p. 11) says in a field near the village of Witney at "Rotteford brigge"; Historia Anglicana (II, 170) locates the battle "next to Burford near Babbelake"; and.the Monk of Westminster (pp. I l l , 112), in a wide field "near Wytteneye" and "at the bridge called Rodecotebrygg" over the Thames River.

34

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

others had made their escape. In their absence, de la Pole, deVere, Tresilian, and Neville were condemned as traitors. The first three were sentenced to be hanged and to forfeit all their goods; but the archbishop, though originally receiving the same sentence, out of reverence for his ecclesiastical position was permitted to suffer only loss of his temporalities and confiscation of his goods. Brembre was brought up for trial and was at length condemned and executed. While the trial of Brembre was still going on, Tresilian was discovered in the vicinity of Westminster and dragged into parliament; having been condemned already, he was promptly sent to execution. Also condemned as traitors in the "Merciless Parliament" and executed were the following: John Blake (the king's sergeant-at-law who had drafted the questions put to the justiciars at Nottingham and who was also a witness to the decisions of the judges) 11 and Thomas Usk (under-sherrif of Middlesex); Sir John Beauchamp (seneschal of the king) and Sir James Berners and Sir John Salisbury (knights of the chamber). Sir Simon Burley also was charged with treason. Even though a number of lords interceded for his life, Burley was condemned to hanging; but his sentence was changed to beheading. With the exception of Tresilian, already executed, the justices who had given opinions favorable to Richard were condemned to death and forfeiture. Upon the intercession of clergy and lords, however, their sentence was commuted to exile, and an allowance for support was granted them. At the close of the "Merciless Parliament" — the last day was June 3 or 4, 1388 - the king and all the kingdom were required to take an oath to keep inviolate the statutes of this parliament. Despite the fact that there is agreement in regard to the main points of the 1386-88 episode, the chronicles show a large number of variations in lesser, but still significant, matters. By additions, omissions, and choice of matter to emphasize, most historians of this period reveal rather clearly whether their sympathies lie with the young king and his supporters or with the magnates. In its presentation of this segment of the complex portrait of Richard transmitted to the sixteenth century, the present chapter will deal with the often conflicting reports of the king's behavior and that of the lords, recordii For the identification of Blake as the lawyer who drafted the questions, see Historia Anglicam, II, 162; Chronicon Angliae, p. 379; Ypodigma Neustriae, p. 350; also, Steel, p. 157.

RICHARD'S D E F I A N T DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

35

ed variously by chroniclers of various leanings. For each "school" the material will generally be discussed in chronological sequence as follows: (1) Richard's dealings with the lords during the "Wonderful Parliament" and his final yielding to them; (2) Richard's defiance of the lords between the "Wonderful Parliament" and the "Merciless Parliament" and his final yielding to them; (3) certain features of the proceedings of the "Merciless Parliament".

L A N C A S T R I A N D E T R A C T O R S ' P I C T U R E OF THE KING'S RESPONSE

TO THE OPPOSITION O F THE G L O U C E S T E R

PARTY

The composite picture of Richard's behavior during the upheavals of 1386-1388, as given by the Lancastrian chroniclers, is not flattering to the king. He is described as stubbornly, even contemptuously, resisting the attempts of the magnates to cleanse the kingdom of the corrupt and avaricious flatterers to whom he was doltishly attached. Furthermore, between parliaments, he is portrayed as taking active steps to destroy the lords hostile to him — by trickery, bribery, intimidation, and even resort to arms. The lords, on the other hand, are pictured as good Englishmen, altogether righteous and disinterested, concerned only with performing their patriotic duty and with preserving their own lives in doing so. The victims of the "Merciless Parliament" are presented as being wholly wicked and as receiving no more than their just deserts. The Knighton Version Among the Lancastrian histories, Knighton's Chronicon gives by far the most detailed account of this period. It is marked by the inclusion of a number of official documents and also by the emphasis placed upon the guilt and punishment of the justiciars and of the five "seducers" of the king, as Richard's favorites are called. It covers all the major events of this period. Richard's defiance of the "Wonderful Parliament". - During the greater part of the parliament of 1386, records the author of Knighton's Chronicon, the king tarried at his Eltham manor. When the lords and Commons of parliament sent him word that they wished to remove from office - Chancellor de la Pole and Treasurer John

36

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

Fordham, Richard scornfully answered that he was unwilling for them to dismiss even the lowliest scullion in his kitchen. 1 2 It was their business, he said, to proceed with "the matters of parliament", that is, the levying of taxes, rather than to encroach upon matters belonging within the king's jurisdiction. But the members of parliament answered that they were unwilling to proceed in any matter or to act upon the least article until the king came in person and removed de la Pole. Richard countered with the suggestion that they should send to him forty of the more experienced Commons to negotiate in behalf of all of them. But a secret rumor had come to parliament that the destruction of these forty men was being planned. Indeed, Knighton continues, it was said that parliament learned later that the conspiracy involved either an armed attack upon the representatives on their way to confer with Richard at Eltham or destruction at a banquet to be given by the king or murder in their London lodgings. When Nicholas (Richard) Exton, mayor of London, refused to agree to such a crime, however, the plot was delayed. 13 Fearing treachery, therefore, parliament rejected the king's proposal and instead sent the Duke of Gloucester and Bishop Arundel to treat with Richard at Eltham. The speech of the two lords to the king is given by Knighton in what purports to be their own words. The lords pointed out that, by an ancient statute and by approved custom, the king should once a year call the lords, nobles, and commons of his kingdom to a parliament as though to the greatest court of the realm, where all justice ought to shine like the sun at noon. The purposes of this assembly according to the statute, they said, were to grant to poor and rich alike the alleviation of injuries; to correct the wrongs of the realm; to treat wisely concerning the state and the rule of king and kingdom; and so to provide that the enemies of king and kingdom, internal and external, should be destroyed. Moreover, continued the lords, the ancient statute provided that, if the king — except for illness or other necessary cause — absented himself from parliament for forty days, as if he did not care for the disturbance of his people or their heavy expenses, then the members of parliament were permitted to leave without the king's consent. 1 4 Richard had already stayed away more than forty days, 12 Knigh ton's Chronicon, 11,215. 13 Ibid., p. 216. 14 Ibid., p. 217. The identity of the "ancient statute" is not known. There is, however, an anonymous fourteenth-century treatise called Modus Tenendi

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

37

Gloucester and Bishop Arundel pointed out, for what cause they did not know. The king's reply, as recorded by Knighton, was that he knew the lords and Commons intended to resist his wishes and, in such persecution, he thought it wise to seek aid against his opponents from his cousin, the king of France; he preferred, he said, to yield to the king rather than to his own subjects. Knighton pictures Gloucester and Arundel as making an impassioned reply. They appealed first to the king's reason, then to his patriotism and sentiment and his love of wealth, and finally to his fear of the loss of the throne. The king of France, they said, was the deadly enemy of the realm; if he set foot in England, he would deprive Richard of his throne rather than bring him aid, which in any case the king of England did not need. They recalled how Richard's grandfather, Edward III, and Richard's father, Prince Edward, had sweated and toiled in heat and in cold to regain in France the rightful inheritance of the kings of England. They described vividly how innumerable nobles and commons of England, France, and other countries had suffered loss of life and property in the French wars and how, even in Richard's time, the people had been so burdened with war taxes that they were reduced to incredible poverty and could not afford even the necessities of life. No king could be rich, they pointed out, as long as he had poor commoners. The impoverishment of the kingdom had come about through unjust ministers who had governed the king and kingdom badly and must be pruned away to prevent the decay of England. Then — to judge by Knighton's account — Gloucester and Arundel decided to play their trump card: threat of deposition. They stated that both an ancient statute and recent experience15 had set a precedent for deposition in certain circumstances. The words of the duke and the bishop, according to Knighton, were as follows: ". . . if the king from bad counsel of any sort or from stupid obstinacy or from contempt or from a singularly rash will or in any irregular Parliamentum, in which it is declared that the king ought not to and can not absent himself from parliament except for illness; but no mention is made of forty days. (For the text of the Modus, see M. V. Clarke, Medieval Representation and Consent [London, 1936], pp. 373-384.) is The "recent experience" obviously refers to the deposition of Edward II in 1327.

38

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

manner shall alienate himself from his people and shall wish not to be governed and regulated by the laws of the kingdom and the statutes and praiseworthy ordinances with the sane advice of the lords and nobles of the realm, but shall wish arbitrarily in his own mad counsels to exercise his own personal will obstinately, then it is permitted them with common agreement and with the consent of the people of the realm to depose the king himself from his royal throne and to set upon the throne of the kingdom in his place someone quite nearly related from the royal house". 16 After this threat, the lords reminded Richard that, if the king should lose his throne, the shame of weak government would be forever associated with his name. Richard's acquiescence in the dismissal of de la Pole and the appointment of the Commission. — The persuasions of Gloucester and Arundel had the desired effect, for, says Knighton, Richard promised to come to parliament three days later and signified that he would acquiesce in its petitions "within the fullness of time". When the king arrived, parliament not only dismissed de la Pole but also removed Sir John Fordham from the office of treasurer and replaced him with the Bishop of Hereford and appointed Sir John Waltham the keeper of the privy seal. In dealing with the impeachment of de la Pole, Knighton's Chronicon states that the former chancellor, while in office, had accumulated an annual income of a thousand pounds, plus many other small sums amounting to twelve thousand pounds, which he had got unjustly by delaying the business of people until first they paid him a fine. Then the chronicle includes a copy of the eight Articles of Arraignment versus Michael de la Pole. 17 These articles specify a number of ways in which the chancellor was said to have exploited the opportunities afforded by his office, in order to accumulate great wealth for himself, much to the detriment of the royal treasury. 1 8 Rather surprisingly, in noting the imprisonment and forfeiture im-

16 Knighton's Chronicon, II, 219. 17 Ibid., pp. 221-223. 18 Walsingham's Historia Anglicana (II, 149) states that de la Pole was accused of persuading Richard to farm out the taxes to him and to allow him to gather money for the works of the Brotherhood of Saint Anthony; from the latter funds, says the chronicler, de la Pole turned over to the fraternity only twenty marks a year, although he apparently collected seven hundred marks annually.

RICHARD'S D E F I A N T DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

39

posed upon Michael, Knighton makes a comment favorable to him: that, because of the honor of de la Pole's military rank, parliament did not wish to kill him or to take away his earldom. 19 Knighton's presentation of the appointment of the Commission stresses the need for such a step. The impoverishment of the kingdom is again referred to as evidence that someone other than the present advisers must direct affairs. The rents and emoluments of the lords had markedly decreased, and in some areas the farms of the tenants had been reduced to desolation; meanwhile, the officers of the king had become enriched beyond moderation. 2 0 When the Commission was appointed, it was given power to determine all business matters, cases, and complaints arising from the time of Edward III to the present, both inside the kingdom and outside. Knighton inserts a copy of the document authorizing the Commission, specifying its duties, and naming the members, who were appointed for one year. 2 1 The king, continues this chronicle, swore to abide by the ordinances of this Commission and not to revoke a single article of the powers granted it; and anyone advising him to the contrary was to be punished by forfeiture of his goods and, upon a second offense, by hanging. Likewise it was provided by statute that, if not all fourteen of the members of the Commission could be present in any given case, then any six of them, plus the three members who were the newly appointed officers of the king (that is, Chancellor Arundel, Treasurer Gilbert, and Keeper of the Privy Seal Waltham) should constitute a quorum. Richard's attempt to annul the acts of the "Wonderful Parliament". In recording the actions of Richard and the counteraction of the magnates from the close of the "Wonderful Parliament" to the opening of the next parliament fourteen months later, Knighton's Chronicon adds a number of points to the story generally agreed upon by the important Lancastrian histories of the time. As soon as parliament ended in November, 1386, says Knighton, despite the fact that de la Pole had been sent to prison in Windsor

19 Knighton's Chronicon, II, 220. 20 Another type of criticism of the advisers is given by Walsingham (Historia Anglicana.U, 156), who states that the friends of Richard, being of a voluptuous nature, failed to instruct him in accomplishments befitting a noble king, such as the use of arms and also hunting, birding, and the like. 21 Knighton's Chronicon, II, 225-231.

40

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

Castle, Richard recalled him from custody and freed him to go wherever he liked. Then the king and his favorites left London. Of Richard's activities during his absence, the author of Knighton's Chronicon describes only one: the council of justiciars. Uniquely among all the chroniclers here discussed, he says that Richard first convened the judges at Shrewsbury. 22 Here Neville, de Vere, de la Pole, Tresilian, and a number of their friends asked the justiciars whether, within the law, Richard could wipe out the ordinances set up in the last parliament. These statutes, they admitted, had been passed with the king's approval; but it was a forced approval, they said. The judges replied that the king could nullify such ordinances at pleasure because he was beyond the law, and they added that many things had been decreed in the last parliament to which they would not have given the assent of law. Then the judges were ordered to convene next at Nottingham. After this, Richard journeyed onward to the northern parts of England. In August, he returned as far as Nottingham. Here were gathered "the five nefarious seducers of the king" and all the justiciars of the kingdom except Sir William Skipwith, who was ill. The justices were ordered to put their seals on the answers to certain questions, in order, says Knighton that "the seducers" might have an opportunity to kill Gloucester and the rest of the Commission and all others agreeing with them in the last parliament. A copy of these questions and answers to them is included in Knighton.23 Somewhat shortened and simplified, the questions read as follows: 1. Are the statute, ordinance, and Commission made in the late parliament, held at Westminster, derogatory to the regality and prerogative of the king? 2. How ought those to be punished who procured the statute, ordinance, and Commission to be made? 3. How ought those to be punished who incited the king to consent to the enactment of the statute and ordinance and to the establishment of the Commission? 4. How ought those to be punished who compelled the king to consent to the statute, ordinance, and Commission? 5. How ought those to be punished who hampered the king so that he could not exercise those rights which pertain to the regality and his prerogative? 22 Ibid., p. 236. 23 Ibid., pp. 237-240. (See also the Rolls of Parliament, iii, 238; Angliae, pp. 380-382; Monk of Westminster, pp. 98-101.)

Chronicon

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

41

6. Does the king have a right to rule that matters defined by himself must be proceeded upon in parliament first, before those defined by the lords and Commons? 7. Can the king dissolve parliament whenever it pleases him? 8. Inasmuch as the king can at any time remove and punish the officers and justiciars of the kingdom for their shortcomings, can the lords and Commons likewise impeach the officers and justiciars in parliament without the approval of the king? 9. How ought that person to be punished who moved in parliament that the statute be produced by which Edward II was judged in parliament, through the inspection of which statute a new statute and ordinance and the aforesaid Commission were conceived in parliament? 10. Is the judgment rendered against the Earl of Suffolk in the last parliament erroneous and revocable or not? When the time came to affix seals to their answers, which were all favorable to Richard, some of the justiciars refused to do so, but were constrained by the lords. Especially Sir Robert Bealknap made strong objection. But the Duke of Ireland and the Earl of Suffolk by threat of death compelled him to comply. In describing Richard's return to London after the Nottingham conference of judges - that is, in November, 1387 - Knighton states that the king made a dramatic entrance into the city, the Archbishop of York going before with raised cross and the Duke of Ireland, the Earl of Suffolk, and Sir Nicholas Brembre following behind. The mayor of London met his majesty with a huge throng of horsemen, all dressed in the white and red colors of the king. The magnates' countermaneuvers and Richard's reactions. - Meanwhile, long before Richard's return to London, it had become clear to Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick that they could not proceed in the governance of king and kingdom, as the preceding parliament had ordered the Commission to do (Gloucester and Arundel, but not Warwick, were members of the Commission), until they could rid themselves of Richard's five favorites, who dominated the king and estranged him from the counsel of the magnates. Therefore, seeing the necessity for force, Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick collected an army and moved from place to place with a great retinue of armed knights and archers, approaching London at Bishopswood, at Waltham, and at Hakeney. (An official document included in Knighton's Chronicon refers to an appellation of the king's favorites

42

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

at Waltham Cross, before the Commission, although the chronicle proper does not mention such an appellation.) On the day after the return of Richard to London, according to Knighton, he and his favorites heard that the three magnates had arrived near London with armed forces. Since the chronicler, hostile as he is to Richard, does not mention that the king had made any attempt to raise troops on his journey north, it can be assumed that the author of Knighton thought the magnates, not the king, were the first to assemble an army. At any rate, he pictures London as being utterly stunned. For a whole day, he writes, report had it that no boat nor barge appeared on the Thames, but all in London kept silent, for the cause of the arrival of the duke and the earls was unknown to the king and to his flatterers. The "seducers" feared terribly but said nothing, thinking how they could destroy the lords. The next day Richard had a proclamation made throughout London, by public crier and two sergeants, that no citizen, under penalty of forfeiture of his goods, should sell to the Earl of Arundel arms, bows, arrows, food, or anything else useful for the maintenance of an army. The reason given was that Arundel had collected forces against the king. Meanwhile the magnates had sent to Richard ambassadors to say that the lords did not intend anything derogatory to the royal prerogative and honor, but that the "traitors" who had upset the whole kingdom and spread bitterness between the king and his nobles must be removed and punished. On the other hand, says Knighton, according to report Richard's favorites told him that the Commission would surely subject him to its will unless he could overthrow its leaders. They advised, therefore, assistance from France. To gain such aid, they said, Richard would have to make peace with the king of France by returning to him Calais, Guines, Picardy, and all other English possessions in France except Aquitaine. In order to implement this suggestion, a messenger, according to Knighton, was said to have been sent to France; he brought back gifts valued at a thousand marks. Similarly it was said that an English knight was sent to Sir William Beauchamp, captain of Calais, with letters bearing the king's seal and demanding the surrender of Calais to the knight. Also, Sir John Golofre was sent with letters to the king of France. But Beauchamp seized the letters from Golofre, sent them to Gloucester, and returned word to Richard that he had received the custody of Calais publicly and was unwilling to return it secretly.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

43

Then Richard's friends, report had it, suggested another expedient to overthrow the magnates: a resort to arms, or, in the imagery of Knighton's Chronicon, surrounding the enemy like a flock of sheep and mangling them as if the devil tore their hides. 24 Thereupon, the king commanded the mayor of London to bring him as many armed men as possible. But when the mayor, who had expected to raise fifty thousand, went about the business, the majority of Londoners announced themselves unwilling to fight against those whom they considered friends of the king, defenders of the truth, and protectors of the poor. A certain Ralph, Lord de Basset, spoke out and said that, despite his loyalty to Richard, he did not intend to have his head broken for the Duke of Ireland. At this juncture, a number of persons advised Richard to listen to the demands of the lords. The Earl of Northumberland for one, records Knighton, pointed out to the king that both nobles and commons sided vigorously with the three magnates; he urged that Richard send for the lords to come and explain publicly the cause of their arrival with armed forces. Richard was stunned at these words. Also, both the Archbishop of Canterbury, Chancellor Arundel, and others attempted to dissuade the king from his belief that the lords had gathered an army for his personal ruin. At length, Richard yielded to persuasion and sent the archbishop, the chancellor, and others to seek the magnates. In order to make firm their friendship with the Londoners, the magnates had meanwhile sent to the city a letter explaining more fully their position and asking for counsel and aid. The gist of the letter was that the Commission of governance appointed in the last parliament by order of the king had been thwarted in its functioning by the five favorites of the king — all traitors, who had taken Richard to places far from his appointed Council, had advised him to make decisions contrary to the honor of the kingdom, had caused dissension between the king and the lords on the Commission, and had even put some lords in peril of their lives. The mayor and aldermen were charged to publish throughout the city that Gloucester and his associates, loyal servants of the king, had gathered an army only for the honor and protection of the kingdom.25 When the archbishop, the chancellor, and their associates found 24 25

Knighton's Chronicon, Ibid., pp. 246-247.

II, 2 4 4 .

44

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

the magnates, both parties agreed that steps must be taken at once for the safety of the kingdom. The magnates consented to go into the presence of the king at Westminster and to state their grievances in person. But, when they were ready to keep their appointment, says Knighton, they were warned of traps set for them near the Mews and in the lodgings of the Archbishop of York. Having examined the suspected places, while Richard sat on the throne waiting for two hours, the lords finally arrived at Westminster with a large retinue. Three times they knelt before the king; he stood up respectfully and took each by the hand. Then the lords pledged that they had devised no harm against the person of the king, and they handed him in writing their accusations against the five "traitors". Richard promised that he would have the five accused appear in the next parliament to stand to the judgment of the law, and he set a date for that parliament. Soon after the Westminster conference, Richard issued a proclamation stating that he had found the magnates innocent of any taint of treason and that he had taken both them and the persons accused by them under his special protection until the next parliament. The chronicler gives a copy of this proclamation — in paraphrase, so he says.26 Escape of the favorites with the king's consent. — Certain of the king's favorites, however, pointed out to him that they and others had been put in the greatest danger when he had promised to produce them at a parliament set so near; they did not dare, they said, to appear in parliament "for such obvious ends of death". So Richard postponed parliament, and Neville, de Vere, and de la Pole fled. Concerning the escape of these three, Knighton's Chronicon gives colorful accounts, which the author is careful to mark as hearsay. The archbishop, according to the chronicler, with his carriage, his other goods, and a few men, left speedily for northern parts in the guise of a simple priest. 2 7 De Vere, disguised as a yeoman, complete with bow and arrows in a quiver, fled to Chester with five other young men.

26

Ibid., pp. 249-250.

27 The archbishop escaped abroad and later was translated by Pope Urban in partes infidelium; that is, he was sent to Saint Andrew's in Scotland, a post which he was unable to take up because Scotland acknowledged the jurisdiction of Pope Clement VII, not of Urban VI. The archbishop retired to a small cure in Louvain (in the province of Brabant, Belgium), where he died in 1392.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

45

The story of de la Pole's escape is given in much detail. The exchancellor went to Calais. Here he had shaved off his beard and hair and dressed himself like a Flanders poulterer, with a basket of capons to sell. Disguised thus, he approached the Calais Castle, hoping to meet up with his brother John, who was captain of the castle. But he was recognized by others and turned over to the captain of the town, William Beauchamp, who sent him back to the king in London. For this act Richard had Beauchamp arrested, but later dismissed him lest it seem that the captain's punishment was due to his refusal to free Calais at the order of the king, a story mentioned above. Michael, with the king's permission, went his way towards Hull. 28 But Richard could not bear the absence of his confidants, says Knighton, especially of the Duke of Ireland. So, under privy seal, he sent orders to Thomas Molyneux, a man of great power in Lancaster and Chester, and to the sherrif of Chester that they should raise an army and, with all safety, bring the duke to Richard; Ireland is described as "the brotherly and very special friend of the king". 29 In collecting the army, Molyneux, it was said, imprisoned those who, out of zeal for Gloucester, refused to join the king's forces; offenders were chained and fed black bread one day and water the next. With such tactics, an army numbering between four and five thousand men was collected and began to move toward London. Confrontation between the king's men and the Gloucester party at Radcot Bridge. — Knighton gives a vivid picture of the preparations made to obstruct de Vere's men. Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick, Derby, and Nottingham sent into all parts of the kingdom to collect their men. Great masses of people - the high and the low - hurried to join with them, eager for the destruction of the favorites. Confusion was everywhere. Church processions formed; and the old, the young, and the women prayed for peace, fearing that Richard would send aid to de Vere against the lords and commons. Meanwhile, the Duke of Ireland and his men reached Oxfordshire and headed toward Radcot Bridge. If he had been able to cross the bridge, says Knighton, he would have been secure from all his enemies. But Derby had put guards at the head of the bridge and had 28 De la Pole escaped abroad; he went to Holland and was afterwards invited to Paris, where he died in 1389. 29 Knighton's Chronicon, II, 251.

46

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

fortified it in three places. Also he had caused the pavement of the bridge to be broken in three places so that only one horseman was able to cross at a time. As de Vere neared the bridge, he saw the Earl of Derby approaching with a great troop. Immediately the Duke of Ireland caused the standard of the king to be raised and joyfully ordered the war trumpets to flourish and the other musical instruments to strike up. In jocund voice he commanded his men to be ready to fight. Some of them were quite willing; but others declined, saying they were perilously outnumbered, they did not dare offend so many nobles of the realm, and moreover they were unwilling to put themselves in such great danger for an unjust cause. But the duke, urging his horse on, proposed to cross the bridge first; and his people followed him. Upon reaching the bridge, however, and seeing the broken pavement and the armed guard, he called out, "We have been deceived", and retreated. 30 Then, leaping down from the horse on which he sat, de Vere climbed upon a swift courser and tried to escape by way of the bank of the Thames River, only to be cut off by Gloucester and his men. So, barred by the river on one side and by his adversaries on the other and seeing Derby draw near to capture him, the Duke of Ireland spurred his horse into the water. Thus, casting aside his gloves, sword, and accoutrements to lighten the burden on the beast, de Vere made good his escape 31 by a remarkable undertaking, says Knighton. Molyneux, attempting to follow the duke, was killed by Lord Mortimer. In the marsh by the riverside, continues the chronicler, it was said that eight hundred of de Vere's men were drowned, loaded with four thousand pounds of gold. This gold, plus carts packed with gold and silver, clothing, bedding, and utensils, Gloucester and his associates appropriated for their own use and for the expenses of their troops. Next Knighton's Chronicon describes the debacle of the rest of de Vere's army. The Gloucester forces rushed upon them — men from Cheshire, Lancashire, and Wales alike — as if attacking public enemies, stripped them of their weapons, horses, valuables, and even clothes and sent them home cold, hungry, naked, but unwounded. Only so

¡bid., p. 253.

31 De Vere went to the Low Countries, where he was joined by de la Pole, with whom he went to Paris about 1389. After staying in Paris for a year, he went to Louvain, where he died in 1392. De Vere's body was brought back to England by Richard in September, 1395.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

47

Molyneux, a servant, and a boy were killed in the fighting, says the chronicler. Richard's submission to the magnates. — The five victorious lords withdrew to Oxford to take counsel, spent Christmas at Saint Albans, then, on December 26, proceeded with their army to London. In a field near Clerkenwell they drew up their incredibly large force in three lines, glistening from the brightness of the arms. Ambassadors were dispatched to the officials of London to inquire whether or not the citizens stood with the lords. At once Mayor Richard Exton 3 2 and the aldermen came forth, handed over the keys to the city gates, and offered the Gloucester forces the hospitality of London. 3 3 Before entering, however, the lords had the fortifications of the city searched for any hidden treachery. Also, before coming to the conference that had been arranged with Richard in the Tower, Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick, Derby, and Nottingham received from the king the keys to all the gates in the Tower and had every fortification examined for possible ambush. Then the keys were turned over to some of Gloucester's men, who were to guard the gates while the lords were inside. Moreover, the whole band of armed men gathered by the lords waited near the Tower, accompanied by a crowd of citizens. After such preparations, the five magnates entered the Tower and came into the presence of the king, their arms mutually intertwined. Knighton's Chronicon does not here describe the appeal of treason; but it does state that king and magnates talked over their differences fully and that Richard, recognizing his danger, favored the lords' petitions and granted that those suspected of treason should be arrested and put into separate custody. After the departure of the lords from the Tower, Richard fulfilled his promise to them by ordering the arrest of Sir Simon Burley and others. 3 4 Also the king ordered the following to be seized and 32 Knighton elsewhere calls the mayor Nicholas Exton. (See Knighton's Chronicon, II, 216.) 33 Favent's Historia Mirabilis Parliamenti, however, flatly contradicts this statement. Favent records that, at this point, Nicholas Brembre boldly and courageously, in the king's name, caused the gates of London to be shut and guarded against the appellants. (See Favent's Historia, p. 12.) 34 Others whose arrest was ordered along with that of Sir Simon Burley were Sir William Elmham, Sir Nicholas Dagworth, and Sir Simon Golofre, the last of whom was then in France. (See Knighton's Chronicon, II, 256.)

48

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

assigned to various prisons: Archbishop Alexander Neville and Michael de la Pole, both of whom had escaped, to be assigned to Rochester Castle; Chief Justice Robert Tresilian, who had escaped and had not yet been discovered, and Sir Nicholas Brembre, who found bail, to be assigned to Gloucester Castle. 35 A dozen persons removed from court at this time upon the instigation of the lords are then listed by Knighton.36 The trial and punishment of the king's favorites by the "Merciless Parliament". — Having recorded the yielding of Richard to the lords' demand for the trial and punishment of the favorites, the author of Knighton hastens on to the parliament of 1388. He seems to take especial satisfaction in reporting the guilt and punishment of the justiciars and of the king's favorites. After mentioning the four month's span of parliament — and adding that this period included two seven-day breaks - the chronicler says that, on the first day of parliament, the justiciars, except William Skipwith, were arrested and imprisoned in the Tower. The annalist next explains the grounds of the judges' guilt. In the last parliament, he says, a document had been drawn up appointing a commission of government by assent of the king and the lords, with the advice of the justices. For greater safety, the document had been made in triplicate — one copy remaining with the king, one with the Commission, and one with the justices. Nevertheless, afterwards at Nottingham the justiciars had opposed their own decree. For this reason they deserved the punishment that was later meted out to them. Concerning the details of their punishment, the writer of this history seems well-informed. On March 6, he says, the five justices and the sergeant-at-law were led forth from the Tower and condemned to 35 Others whose seizure was ordered by the king were: the clerks Richard Clifford and Nicholas Slake, to be assigned to Nottingham Castle for custody; Sir John Beauchamp, Sir Thomas Trivet, Sir John Salisbury, and John Lincoln, to be assigned to Dover Castle; Sir James Bemers and the clerk Richard Medford, to be assigned to Bristol Castle. (See Knighton's Chronicon, II, 256.) 36 The list includes Lord John Fordham, bishop of Durham; the Lord de Beaumont; the Lord de la Souche; the Lord de Burnelle; Sir John Lovell; Lord Thomas Camois; the son of Lord Clifford; Lord Baldwin de Berford; the Bishop of Chichester, confessor of the king; and Ladies le Monne, le Ponynges, le Molynews. (See Knighton's Chronicon, II, 257.)

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

49

drawing and hanging. But, when Queen Anne interceded for their lives with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops, King Richard - with the consent of the lords - commuted their sentence to disinheritance and banishment to Ireland for life. 37 The wives and sons of the justices were forbidden to go to Ireland, lest they be corrupted by false legal instruction; and they were also forbidden to give counsel or aid of any kind to the exiles. This chronicle also seems much concerned to present fully the guilt of the king's favorites and the punishment of their treachery. For several days at the beginning of this parliament, says Knighton, de Vere, Neville, de la Pole, and Tresilian were called to answer to Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick, and their associates, Derby and Nottingham, concerning treason done to the king and the kingdom. When they did not appear, these four favorites of the king were exiled forever by the common judgment of parliament. Also their goods movable and immovable, lands and rents - were confiscated to the crown ; yet it was decreed that the entailed lands and rents should pass to their heirs. A few pages farther on, the chronicler returns to the appeal of treason. This time he includes a copy of the thirty-nine articles of accusation made by the five appellants, in full parliament, against de Vere, de la Pole, Neville, Tresilian, and Brembre. 38 These articles detail the specific ways in which the accused had given the king bad advice and had persuaded him to action contrary to the best interests of the kingdom. 39 37 In Ireland the justiciars were assigned two by two to certain places and forbidden, upon penalty of death, to go more than a specified distance from the designated places. Fulthorp and Bealknap, each of whom was granted from the treasury forty pounds a year for support, were confined within the limits of three leagues from their abodes. Burgh and Holt, granted forty marks each, and Cary and Lokton, twenty pounds each, were confined within two leagues of their places of custody. (See Knighton's Chronicon, II, 259.) According to Favent's chronicle, Bealknap and Holt were relegated to the village of Draghala; Fulthorp and Burgh, to Dublin; and Cary and Lokton, to Waterford. (See Favent's Hisroria, p. 23.) 38 ibid., pp. 272-292. (See also the Rolls of Parliament, iii, 228-256.) 39 A personal grievance that Gloucester had against de Vere is recorded by another chronicler, Walsingham, in Historia Anglicana (II, 160). De Vere had divorced his wife, child of Edward Ill's daughter Isabella and therefore niece of Gloucester. In her place, de Vere married a woman who had come with Queen Anne from Bohemia, the ignoble daughter of a cellarer, it was reported; she was

50

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

Next the author of Knighton describes in picturesque detail the discovery and hanging of Tresilian and the wickedness and beheading of both Brembre and Sir Simon Burley. After parliament had been sitting for more than a month, Tresilian was discovered. For the chief justice, donning a rough, worn-out coat and wearing a wide and long beard (known as a "Parisian" beard) had hidden himself in the house of an apothecary near the Westminster gate, whence he could see the lords and magnates entering and leaving parliament and could spy upon what was going on. 4 0 So skillful was his disguise, says the chronicler, that he passed for a poor, feeble old man and could be recognized only by his voice. But, betrayed by his own servant, the justiciar was captured and presented in parliament by the Duke of Gloucester. Since he had already been condemned as a traitor, Tresilian was soon hanged at Tyburn and had his throat cut as well. 41 When he comes to the trial of Sir Nicholas Brembre, the author of Knighton is full of blame for the former mayor. The knight, he says, had too often 4 2 been promoted by the king to the mayoralty of London, against the will of many citizens. And during his terms of office he had done many oppressive acts and caused much dissension within the city. Indeed, it was said that, under Brembre, the office of mayor had become a common chopping block for cutting off the heads of those opposed to the mayor. According to report, says Knighton, Brembre had actually seized eight thousand, five hundred Londoners and had planned to behead them all. Moreover, it was his

called, in the vulgar idiom, "Launcecrona". This event caused great scandal; the lords were indignant, says Walsingham, especially Gloucester, w h o vowed revenge. 40

Another Lancastrian chronicler, Favent (Historia, p. 17), says that Tresilian had stationed himself in the gutter on the roof o f this house. 41 Knighton's Chronicon, II, 2 9 2 - 2 9 3 . Favent says that, after Tresilian had descended from the roof and hidden under a round table covered with tattered cloths, the master of the house betrayed him. When the five appellants heard of the capture of the justiciar, they rose from their seats abruptly and started gut of the parliamentary hall. At the gate, they seized Tresilian and dragged him before parliament, crying out "We have h i m ! " T h o u g h he would confess nothing, he was summarily sent to execution. Because he refused t o die so long as he wore anything, he was stripped and hanged naked and his throat was cut. Upon his person, records Favent, were depicted the head of the devil, the names of devils, and certain signs of the zodiac. (See Favent's Historia, pp. 17, ff.) 42 According to the record in Great Chronicle of London, Brembre served as mayor of London in 1376, 1 3 7 7 , 1 3 8 3 , 1384, and 1385.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

51

intention to change the name of London to Little Troy and to make himself duke of that city. Condemned to death for these and other crimes, Brembre was beheaded by the very instruments, it was said, which he had prepared for the murder of his adversaries. Except for the pleading of Richard, he would have been drawn and hanged. 43 The Knighton historian also shows hostility toward Sir Simon Burley in his account of that knight's condemnation as a traitor. Burley, he implies, used the office of vice-chamberlain to the king as a means of increasing his private wealth. During his term of office, Sir Simon's personal income rose from the twenty marks annually of his patrimony to over three thousand marks a year. Also the knight was lavish in his expenditures. He was said to have given costly liveries, at Christmas and at various other times, to arms-bearing knights and esquires of the king's court and to his own retainers, too. At one time he presented to retainers one hundred and forty garments, again one hundred and sixty, and another time two hundred and twenty - all of gold or of fine scarlet. As in the case of Brembre, the chronicler says that Burley was condemned to drawing and hanging, but Richard had the sentence commuted to beheading. 44 Favent's Version Another and shorter account of this portion of Richard's reign, quite independent of Knighton's Chronicon and yet equally derogatory to the king's advisers, is John Favent's Historia Mirabilis Parliamenti MCCCLXXXVI.As The chief value of this pamphlet for modern times is its circumstantial narrative of the parliament of February-to-June, 1388. Indeed, the nature of the details — such as the dress and manner of the appellants, the crowd present, the specific names of officers taking an active part in the proceedings, and the withdrawal of the clergy — suggest a genuine eyewitness account. There is a vivid picture of the scene at the opening of parliament. The "white hall" was crowded up to the corners. After the peers had assembled, the king entered. Then came the five appellants, followed by an innumerable 43 Knighton's Chronicon, II, 293. 44 Ibid., p. 294. 45 As explained above, page 29, note 1, the title of this pamphlet is misleading; it is the parliament of 1388 which the pamphleteer considers "wonderful" and to which he devotes many times the amount of space given to the earlier assembly.

52

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

company. The lords appellant wore golden robes and advanced with arms mutually intertwined. 46 All at one time, they bowed t o the king. To the right of the throne sat the lords spiritual; to the left, the lords temporal. The chancellor sat (in traditional fashion) with his back to the king. None of the "conspirators" was present, though Brembre was being held in Gloucester's prison. Robert Pleasington, speaker for the five lords - according to Favent - declared the appellation. He added that Gloucester had come to clear his name of the treasonous charge preferred against him by the royal favorites. Through the mouth of the chancellor, Richard replied that the duke came from such an honorable line, and one so closely allied to his own, that no such suspicion could be entertained against him. (Earlier in his narrative, Favent himself exonerated Gloucester from guilt in gathering forces against the king on the grounds that every man has a right to repel violence by violence.) Next, for two hours Godfrey Martin, clerk of the crown, read in a clear voice the articles of accusation. Upon hearing the rehearsal of these treacherous deeds, many were overwhelmed with grief. Immediately, the members of the clergy announced that they were forbidden by canonical law to be present at any man's arraignment or condemnation. So, when the appellants called for justice, the lords spiritual withdrew into the king's chamber, adjoining. At this point, Richard, moved by charity, Favent reports, favored the guilty rather than the exposers of guilt: he stopped proceedings in order to see whether anything could be alleged in defense of the accused. But, on February 11, when the peers had requested that no other business be transacted until the treason cases had been cleared away and when nothing could be alleged in justification of the accused, Richard consented that judgment be given. John Devereux, marshal of court and king's lieutenant for that time, pronounced the sentence of condemnation. In describing the trials of Brembre and Burley, Favent gives a number of interesting details, quite different from those presented by the author of Knighton. He begins with the case of Brembre, though he interrupts it before its conclusion to dispose of Tresilian. His 4 6 It will be remembered that Knighton describes the appellants as appearing thus, "their arms mutually intertwined", when they came before Richard in the Tower after Radcot Bridge, n o t when they made their entrance into parliament. (See above, p. 47.)

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

53

account of Sir Nicholas Brembre is definitely more favorable to the former mayor than is the Knighton version. When Brembre appeared before parliament, says Favent, he asked for counsel and for time to prepare answers to the accusations against him; but this request was refused. Thereupon, Brembre, "preferring to acquit himself gallantly in arms rather than [to die] shamefully through the condemnation of parliament", offered to fight in the lists anyone who called him traitor. 4 7 It snowed gages; but the right to vindicate himself in battle was not granted the accused, and the trial continued. Next day, various London guilds complained of injuries they had suffered from the former mayor. But at this point Tresilian was discovered, and proceedings against Brembre were stopped temporarily. Later, when the trial of Brembre was resumed, he received the death sentence and made a virtuous end, craving mercy and forgiveness of God and man. When he comes to the trial of Burley, Favent expresses admiration for the former vice-chamberlain, just as he does in the case of Brembre. Upon the arraignment of Burley, parliament was sharply divided into factions for and against him. Eager for the execution of the knight were Gloucester, Arundel, Warwick, and all the Commons. Equally detennined to save Burley were Derby and Nottingham, the king along with the queen, the Prior of Saint John's (Burley's uncle), and many others in the upper house of parliament. As the trial dragged on — it lasted from March 12 to May 5, Favent says — the Commons grew tired of what seemed useless delays and asked permission to go home; this was not granted. Then, unexpectedly, a movement in favor of Burley took shape among the common people in various parts of the kingdom, especially in Kent. Fearing a rising of the commoners, the peers who had defended Burley quickly turned against him, and the knight was condemned to be hanged and beheaded. But the sentence was changed to beheading only, "because he had been a knight of the Garter, a powerful nobleman — gentle in deeds and gracious — and a long-time courtier of the king". 4 8 At the very close of his account of this parliament, Favent makes a strange statement. On the last day of parliament, he says, the king and queen, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons came to Westminster Abbey; here, after the Bishop of London had celebrated mass and the Archbishop of Canterbury had spoken concerning the form "7

Favent, p. 16.

4«

¡bid. p. 21.

54

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

and danger o f the c o r o n a t i o n o a t h , the peers and C o m m o n s t o o k a n e w the o a t h o f fealty t o the king, as at his c o r o n a t i o n . 4 9

Favent

explains this a c t i o n b y saying t h a t , a l t h o u g h b o t h h o u s e s had t a k e n the o a t h o f allegiance and h o m a g e t o Richard w h e n h e w a s c r o w n e d , the king h a d b e e n in his m i n o r i t y at that t i m e a n d it s e e m e d f i t t i n g t o repeat the o a t h n o w . 5 0

Walsingham's Besides Knighton's

Version

Chronicon

in Historia A n g l i c a n a

and Favent's Historia,

a third inde-

p e n d e n t a c c o u n t o f Richard's career f r o m 1 3 8 6 t o 1 3 8 8 is Walsingh a m ' s Historia

Anglicana.51

T h i s c h r o n i c l e handles t h e " W o n d e r f u l

Parliament" s k e t c h i l y , w i t h o u t even m a k i n g m e n t i o n o f the appoint49 [bid., p. 24. 50 Clarke and Galbraith suggest that the real reason for a second administration of the coronation oath may have been that Richard had actually been deposed by the appellants - from December 28 or 29 through December 31, 1387. There is no direct proof of this deposition; but these scholars find a basis for their theory in a passage from an unprinted Continuation of the Polychronicon, Harleian MS 3600. This manuscript states that, after the beheading of Burley and the flight of de Vere, the lords "came to King Richard and deposed him from the royal seat, and so for three days he remained uncrowned"; but, because of dissensions as to who should succeed to the throne, they recrowned Richard, simply removing his servants and counselors. As further evidence of an early, brief deposition, Clarke and Galbraith cite the following confession of Gloucester, made in September, 1399: " ' . . . I was in place ther it was communed and spoken in manere of deposyl of my liege lord, trewly I knowlech wele that we were assented thereto for two dayes or three and than we for to have done our homage and our oothes, and putt him as heyly in hys estate as ever he was.' " (See below, p. 81, notes 34 and 36.) In support of their conjecture, these two scholars also refer t o the above account from Favent, to a similar one from the Monk of Westminster, and to certain hints of deposition given by both Walsingham and the Monk of Westminster (see below, p. 56, n. 55, and pp. 62-63) in their records of this period. (See M. V. Clarke and V. H. Galbraith, "The Deposition of Richard II", Note B, called "Another Deposition of Richard?", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XIV (19301, 157-161.) Besides the mentions of the renewal of the coronation oath referred t o by Clarke and Galbraith, there are other references to this phenomenon in the following chronicles: Froissart, II, 281-282, and Capgrave, Chronicle of England, p. 250. si Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 148-175; closely allied to the Historia Anglicana narrative for 1386-1388 are the following additional Lancastrian

RICHARD'S D E F I A N T DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

55

ment of the Commission; and it devotes not much more space to the "Merciless Parliament". But many points in between the two assemblies are treated in detail. Certain portions of the narrative are developed in anecdotal style — that is, by the inclusion of little stories giving the direct speech of the major characters. Another distinguishing feature of Walsingham's account is a full expression of what seems to be personal animosity toward the king's favorites, especially towards de la Pole, de Vere, and Burley. For instance, alone among the chroniclers whose works are discussed in this book, Walsingham records that de Vere was accused of "obscene intimacy" ("familiaritatis obscoenae") with Richard. 5 2 The chronicler is equally strong in his glorification of his heroes — Richard Arundel and Gloucester. 53 As compared with the author of Knighton and with Favent, Walsingham places greater blame upon Richard and proportionately less upon the royal advisers, though their influence is not minimized. For instance, after the dismissal of de la Pole, the king, says Walsingham, planned to destroy Gloucester and others at a dinner in London. But, advised of the plot, they escaped. Again, after the king's return to London from northwest England, with the encouragement of his advisers he plotted to murder all the magnates and sent the Earl of Northumberland to Reigate Castle to arrest Arundel first; but Arundel, forewarned, had left the castle. Frustrated in his design, Richard prepared to set out for Canterbury, according to report, says Walsingham, in order to seek aid across the sea by relinquishing to Charles VI the English fortifications in Calais and in the neighboring territory. Astounded by the discovery of the lords' forces in Haringay Forest, however, the king gave up the trip.

chronicles: Ypodigma

Neustriae,

pp. 3 4 5 - 3 6 6 ; Thomas Otterboume,

Regum Angliae, in Duo Return Anglicarum

Scriptores

Chronica

Veteres, ed. Thomas

Hearne (Oxford, 1732), I, 166-175; Chronicon Angliae, pp. 3 7 1 - 3 8 7 ; the Monk of Evesham, pp. 6 6 - 1 0 3 ; and the Continuation of the Poly chronicon, VIII, 476-487.

52

Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 148.

53 Historia Anglicana (II, 155) praises the integrity and unselfishness of Arundel and Gloucester. It recounts how Arundel, admiral o f the navy, had captured a French ship loaded with wine; instead o f confiscating the wine to his own use, he made it available to the public at a low rate, for which deed he was idolized by the people. Gloucester is consistently described as having as his only goal the g o o d o f the kingdom.

56

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DKALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

Historia Anglicana, plus some of its derivatives, is the only one of the chronicles to record that Richard tried to influence the parliamentary elections at this period. 5 4 On the other hand, Historia is the only Lancastrian history examined here to record that the Gloucester party threatened Richard with deposition — without actually deposing him - after the battle of Radcot Bridge. 5 5 And Historia (II, 173) is also the only independent Lancastrian chronicle to state that the magnates brought to the parliamentary session of 1388 an army sufficient to curb whatever insurgent movement might arise. Eulogium Version Still another, and different, Lancastrian telling of the events of this period is contained in the Eulogium. 56 This history begins its description of the 1386 parliament by stating, unlike the other accounts, that Richard dissolved parliament at once, because the lords insisted upon proceeding against Michael de la Pole instead of raising funds to attack France, which, according to Richard, was the purpose of convening the three estates. When parliament would not be dissolved, the king refused to attend its sessions, records this chronicle — in agreement with Knighton - until he was compelled to do so by its threat of enforcing the statute used against Edward II. The most important contribution of the continuator of Eulogium to this episode, perhaps, is his statement, unique among the Lancastrian histories, concerning the law by which the king's favorites were tried in the parliament of 1388. In order to prevent those tried 54 ty'alsingham (Historia Anglicana, II, 161) states that, while the king was at Nottingham Castle after the parliament of 1 3 8 6 , he summoned to him all the sheriffs of the kingdom to request that they should bring it about, by bribe or fraud, that no knights should be elected to the next parliament except those w h o had been chosen by the king and his council. The sheriffs answered that they could do nothing, for the c o m m o n s held strongly to their traditional right of electing their representatives themselves. 55 After the battle of Radcot Bridge, when the king promised to come to Westminster to treat with the magnates and then changed his mind, Gloucester and his friends, says Historia Anglicana (II, 172), announced that, if Richard failed to keep his agreement, they would elect another ruler, one more amenable to the advice of his nobles. For Knighton's mention o f the threat of deposition before Radcot Bridge, see above, pp. 37-38. 56 Eulogium, III, 359-367.

the battle of

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

57

for treachery from protecting themselves by showing that they had done nothing worthy of death according to the law of England or the orders of the king, the magnates ruled that, for this parliament only, the accused should be tried by law of parliament; that is, the assent of parliament to the guilt of an accused man should be considered a valid judgment against him. If parliament should accuse anyone of a crime, the chronicler explains further, since no one could fight with parliament, the person would necessarily be condemned without further consideration. 57 Adam ofUsk's

Version

Undoubtedly an independent account of this period is the Chronicon by the Lancastrian sympathizer Adam of U s k . s 8 This chronicle touches lightly upon most of the major events, except that there is no mention of Richard's withdrawal to northwestern England, nor — strangely, since Adam was a lawyer — of the conference with the justiciars. Concerning Richard's reactions to the appointment of the Commission of governance by the parliament of 1386, the most interesting comment in Adam's account of this period is his statement that the king, angered to be bridled by his subjects and urged on by his "flatterers", continually thwarted those set in authority, until he brought about the destruction of Gloucester and Arundel and, in the end, his own death and that of his supporters. 5 9 Gower's Version The final Lancastrian chronicle to be discussed for this period is Gower's Cronica Tripertita, 6 0 the first part of which is devoted to the 57 Ibid., p. 366. See below, p. 86, for a record, in the Continuation of Eulogium, of Richard's duplication of this device - judgment by assent of parliament - when Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick were summoned to trial in the parliament of September, 1397. 58 Adam of Usk, pp. 14 2-146. 59 The chronicler is referring to the destruction of Gloucester and Arundel in 1397, which he interprets as an act of vengeance on the part of the king, and to Richard's deposition and death, which Usk apparently ascribes to Henry Bolingbroke's desire to make requital for his own exiling, his uncle Gloucester's destruction, and Richard's high-handedness. 60 Three other Lancastrian chronicles dealing with this period are so brief as

58

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

people and events of 1386-88. 6 1 Gower's purpose in this versified history is not to narrate the events of this period but, through the devices of poetry, to arouse in his readers scorn for Richard and admiration for Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick, whom he calls here, as in his account of 1397, by their popular metaphorical names the " S w a n " , the "Horse", and the "Bear" respectively. The poet, who composed his work in the early years of Henry IV's reign and was trying hard to attract favorable attention from the new monarch, is careful t o subordinate the role Henry played in this uprising and not to attribute to him the initiation of any political action.

P R E - Y O R K I S T ENGLISH A N D F R E N C H S Y M P A T H I Z E R S ' D E S C R I P T I O N OF THE

C O N D U C T OF THE KING A N D THE

M A G N A T E S BETWEEN 1 3 8 6 A N D 1 3 8 8

The histories of 1386-88 composed by the pre-Yorkist English and French Ricardian sympathizers are, if taken together, mildly favorable to the king. But the best that the most Ricardian author can do with this period is to express admiration for Richard and some of his favorites and to show that Gloucester and his associates were guilty of overbearing, cruel, and impious acts and that it is always wrong for subjects t o rebel against their sovereign. The Dieulacres Version The composer of the Dieulacres Chronicle, 62 among this group of writers the strongest champion of Richard's behavior at this time, telescopes the years 1386, 1387, and 1388 and ignores most of the major issues of the day - that is, the dismissal of de la Pole and the appointment of the Commission, the Nottingham conference, and the to be of little value and are not taken up here. They are: the Continuation of the Brut, in the Brut, Part II, p. 342; the Great Chronicle of London, p. 46; and John Capgrave, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, ed. Francis Charles Hingeston, Rolls Series (London, 1858), pp. 98-99. 61 Gower, Cronica Tripertita, Prima Pars, lines 1-219, in The Complete Works, ed. Macaulay, IV, 314-320. 62 Dieulacres Chronicle [portion 1381-1403], ed. M. V. Clarke and V. H. Galbraith, in "The Deposition of Richard II", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XIV (1930), 167-168.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

59

"Merciless Parliament". Neither de la Pole nor Neville is mentioned. But it is recorded that, in 1387, a number of so-called "traitors" were discovered in London, of whom Brembre and Burley were beheaded. Their execution, says the chronicler, was unjust since they had supported the just king; and from this violation of justice came afterwards many tribulations. The whole episode of Radcot Bridge, according to the author of Dieulacres, was due to de Vere's divorce from his wife, Gloucester's niece, and his remarriage at Chester, with the king's consent, to Launcecrona, Queen Anne's Bohemian maidservant. 6 3 These deeds of de Vere's, says the chronicler, caused strife between the innocent King Richard and the Duke of Gloucester, whom many, especially from the eastern part of the kingdom, had joined out of malice to de Vere. Backed by Hereford, Warwick, Arundel, and Nottingham, Gloucester attacked the Duke of Ireland, who was hastening toward London with an escort. Through the favor of God, de Vere, continues the Dieulacres monk, courageously avoided the threats of the magnates by swimming the Thames on horseback. The author of Dieulacres Chronicle draws this moral from his story: it is ever unreasonable for a servant or subject to rebel against his lord. The chronicler concludes his record of this period with the ominous statement that God will allow no evil to go unpunished. 64 The Monk of Westminster's

Version

To some extent agreeing with Dieulacres in its sympathetic attitude toward Richard during this period is the Monk of Westminster's Continuation of Malvern's Continuation of the Polychronicon. 65 Because it is a detailed, independent account of the 1386-88 period much fuller, even, than the longest Lancastrian version - and because it 63

See above, p. 49, n. 39. 64 For the Dieulacres account of how God caused the magnates to be punished, see below, p. 94. 65 In addition to the Dieulacres Chronicle and the Monk of Westminster's Continuation of the Polychronicon, there is one more non-Lancastrian, prcYorkist history written in England and dealing with Richard's troubles of the late 1380's. This is the Kirkstall Chronic!e[portion 1355-1400], cd. M. V. Clarke and N. Denholm-Young, "The Kirkstall Chronicle, 1355-1400", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XV (1931), 125-128. This chronicle, however, is of minor importance for this period.

60

R I C H A R D ' S D E F I A N T D E A L I N G S WITH P A R L I A M E N T

contains a number of documents, dates, and place names, this history is by far the most important of the non-Lancastrian and pre-Yorkist chronicles for the period. True, for more than half its length the monk's Continuation can hardly be called a non-Lancastrian chronicle at all, for in general outline it tells the same story that the Lancastrian histories do, though it achieves a sort of impartiality by a sparsity of "loaded" words and of comments either praising or blaming the curialist group or the Gloucester party. But from the time the chronicler approaches the "Merciless Parliament", and in a few instances even earlier,there is a definite feeling of sympathy for the Ricardian point of view. This is achieved in two ways, both positively through approval of Richard and negatively through disapproval of his opponents. First, there are additions to t h e basic story that show Richard as peace-loving and patient; fair-minded and conciliatory; loyal and courageous; and, most of all, religious and determined t o protect the privileges of the church. Second, there are further additions which picture the magnates as engaging in frankly revolutionary proceedings and as prosecuting the accused in the "Merciless Parliament" with vindictiveness and cruelty and a reckless disregard of law. The first favorable interpretation of the king's behavior comes when the Monk of Westminster says that Richard's purpose in wanting to sell back the English territory in France was to prevent the imposition of new taxes for the continuance of the war and to give his country the advantages of peace (not, as the Lancastrians say, to gain aid from France in opposing the Gloucester party). Next the chronicler records that the king was willing for Richard Exton to continue in office as mayor of London for the year 1388. The implication of kingly fair-mindedness becomes clear when it is noticed that a royal attempt against Gloucester's life, recorded in this chronicle, had been thwarted by this very Exton. Another example of the king's fair and conciliatory attitude occurs in the account of how de la Pole tried to persuade Richard to put the Earl of Warwick to death, charging that Warwick had spearheaded the refusal of the lords to come to Westminster and also a conspiracy by them for the death and deposition of the king. But Richard refused to have Warwick murdered, saying so drastic an act called for greater deliberation. The Monk of Westminster even calls the king patient, for, when the lords removed from the royal household all those closest to Richard and substituted others as they pleased, the heart of the king was filled

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

61

with grief, says the chronicler, but he bore this and other things most patiently. 66 There is no doubt that this chronicler found Richard most sensitive to the distress of his friends and fearless in defending them when they were under the attack of the magnates. Between the conference at Westminster and the battle of Radcot Bridge, this author recounts, Richard stood boldly with Ireland and told the members of the Commission that de Vere was not a man to be ashamed of or to be considered harmful to the king and kingdom in any way. Upon the occasion of his friends' trials in the "Merciless Parliament", Richard must often have felt too heartbroken to be present, for the monk records meticulously that the king withdrew when Brembre was first summoned to parliament and that judgment was given upon Tresilian, Blake, Usk, and Burley in the absence of the king, the Duke of York acting as king's lieutenant in the case of Blake and Usk, and Gloucester, in the case of Burley. In at least two cases, according to the Monk of Westminster's report, Richard loyally took a strong and courageous stand against the appellants. When the articles were read against Sir Nicholas Brembre, the king abundantly excused his friend by protesting that he had never known Brembre to be a traitor and that he did not recognize him as guilty of any of the articles, or appreciably guilty of anything. Again, when the trial of Burley dragged on, Richard and certain lords, zealous for the life of the accused, sent the Duke of York and Sir John Cobham to request that Burley be allowed by the Commons to make additional reply to the articles against him. 67 But the Monk of Westminster's highest praise of Richard is reserved for the king's staunch support of ecclesiastical rights, especially of the privilege of sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. This question of sanctuary the monk discusses at length. On April 18 (1388), the chronicler says, Richard had the charters and privileges of Westminster Abbey brought to his manor at Kenington and read aloud in the presence of Chancellor Arundel, the Bishop of Winchester, John Devereux (the seneschal), and other great men. The chancellor commented that it was no crime to drag a man from sanctuary and to seize his goods, for, otherwise, wicked men harmful to the state might escape punishment by seeking sanctuary. The Bishop of Winchester 66 67

Monk of Westminster, pp. 103, 104, 105, 116. Ibid., pp. 109, 148, 150, 155, 166, 176.

62

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

agreed, pointing out that, if the right o f sanctuary were granted to everyone, even a murderer of the king might go free. The king and the others derided the improbability o f this situation, and then Richard stated his opinion: that those who had dragged Tresilian from the sanctuary of the Church o f Saint Peter, Westminster, and those who had consented should be subject to excommunication. A t this point in his narrative, the Monk o f Westminster inserts a eulogy of Richard, beginning: "Behold how the noble king venerates and loves the Church of G o d , how affectionately and anxiously he is busy to defend it and by all means to preserve its privileges." 68 Besides picturing Richard as an admirable figure, the Monk of Westminster tips the scales further in the king's favor by presenting the appellants in an ugly light, that is, as cruel, avaricious despots ruthlessly operating outside the law. It is not that the monk directly attributes these qualities to the magnates, but that his additions to the Lancastrian accounts are o f such a nature that no other conclusions can be drawn. In the first place, having given no indication that Richard had actually collected an army at this time, the monk records that Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick raised troops -

the first in

Essex, the second in Sussex, and the last in Middlesex — because they had heard that the king, upon the advice o f his friends, was proposing to send for his retainers. In other words, it is seemingly the belief of the Monk of Westminster that the three magnates collected an army before Richard did; the king was astonished when he heard that troops had been raised against him. Another instance o f slanting against the lords occurs in the account o f their decision to ride against de Vere. In an apparent attempt to give some show o f legality to their actions, the five magnates seized from a session o f court at Newmarket Justiciar John Holt and Sergeants-at-law Robert Pynchbeck and Richard Skelton and held these lawyers some time, thinking it might be convenient to have such experienced persons with them in their difficult task, explains the chronicler. 69

Thus attended, the

magnates led their forces through many places, even to Northampton, proclaiming everywhere that they were loyal to Richard, but wished to drive away the "traitors". Twice, according to the historian of Westminster, Gloucester and his associates considered deposing Richard. The' first time was just

68 69

Ibid., p. 174. Ibid., pp. 105, 106, 110.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

63

after the conference at Westminster when Richard seemed unwilling t o keep the promises he had made there. The three magnates then discussed his deposition; but Warwick objected, stating that it would be a disgrace to depose a prince at whose coronation they had all offered a corporal oath of fidelity. 7 0 Gloucester and Arundel acquiesced. The second time was just after Radcot Bridge at the conference in the Tower. 7 1 The monk reports this occasion as follows. The appellants threatened the king that, if he did not subject himself t o their governance, they would call t o the throne his heir, w h o was of a perfect age, they said, and would undoubtedly obey the lords gladly. 7 2 Astonished, Richard affirmed by an oath that he would submit to them in all things fitting, if his crown and royal dignity were allowed to remain safe. How close Gloucester and his associates came to deposing Richard can perhaps he judged by the fact that, after the whole disturbance was over, the lords apparently felt the need of renewing their oath of allegiance t o the king, for this chronicle records that, on June 3 (1388), at Westminster, Richard renewed his coronation oath, and the lords and the Commons of parliament took again the oath of fealty that they were accustomed to take at a coronation. 7 3 The additions the Monk of Westminster makes to the Lancastrian account of the "Merciless Parliament" show the five appellants in relentless pursuit of the destruction of Richard's closest friends, even to the extent of perverting law and order to their own ends. The trial of Nicholas Brembre is a notable example. Besides recording, as Favent does, that Brembre was denied counsel and time t o prepare answers, the monk adds that he was also refused a copy of the articles against him and was forced to answer negatively or positively to each article as it was read out. When Brembre pleaded n o t guilty t o all charges and Richard sustained him, the estates of parliament agreed that a commission of twelve lords should be appointed to determine whether or not the former mayor was worthy of death on the grounds 70 ibid., p. 110. 71 For the Historia Anglicana account of this threat of deposition, see above, p. 56, n. 55. 72 Ibid., p. 115. It is not clear who is meant by the heir "of a perfect age". The Earl of March, legal heir to the throne, was only thirteen. Perhaps Derby, twenty at this time, or Gloucester, thirty-two, is intended. 13 Monk of Westminster, p. 183. (For other chronicle records of the retaking of the coronation oath at this time, see above, p. 54, n. 50.)

64

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

of the articles put forth. The commission found no cause of death. Indignant, the lords demanded that judgment be pronounced upon Brembre anyway; but just then Tresilian was discovered, and the knight's case was postponed. Upon their return to the case of Brembre, the lords requested, continues the chronicler, that two members of each craft in London be asked to decide on Brembre's culpability. But the responses of the craftsmen were indeterminate. So the appellants sent for the mayor, certain aldermen, and the recorder of the city. These were asked one direct question: whether or not they believed the accused knew about the treacheries set forth in the articles against him. Their reply was that he knew more of this sort of thing than he did not know. Immediately the lords demanded of the recorder what the law said in such a case. This official replied that whoever concealed treachery deserved death. Thereupon Brembre was sentenced, in the presence of Richard, to death and forfeiture. 74 In addition to showing how the guilt of Brembre was "established" in this questionable fashion, the Monk of Westminster portrays the capture and trial of Tresilian as being equally ruthless. When word came to parliament that Tresilian had been found in the sanctuary of the Church of Saint Peter at Westminster Abbey, reports the author of this history, the lords collected a mob quickly and went to the sanctuary. Here Gloucester, with cudgel in hand, seized the former chief justice, who tried to defend himself from those ready to rush upon him cruelly. And so, on February 19 (1388), the lords with their defiled hands, says the chronicler, dragged Tresilian by force from the sanctuary and into the House of Wools nearby. At this place they questioned him as to whether or not the right of sanctuary should save a traitor to the kingdom. The former justiciar said it should, for the liberty of Saint Peter's Church was definitely granted to such criminals. But the lords, thinking he was only trying to save himself, discounted his decision and haled him before parliament. Gloucester, however, must secretly have concurred with the chief justice's judgment, for later the monk notes that both Gloucester and Sir John Cobham, their consciences burdened because they had violently dragged Tresilian from sanctuary, submitted themselves to the Abbot of Westminster and promised to make amends for their crime. 75 74 75

Ibid., pp. 149, 166-168. Ibid., p. 178.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

65

Once in parliament, Tresilian was told that, since he had not appeared after proclamation was made for him three times, he had been tried in absentia and adjudged to drawing and hanging. The justiciar answered that such a procedure was erroneous and invalid 7 6 and that he wished to exercise his right to defend his innocence. But he was told that an act or judgment of parliament, passed through due process, remains irrevocable. 77 The Monk of Westminster's variations on the Lancastrian story of Sir Simon Burley's trial and condemnation show both the appellants and the Commons as determined to bring about the ruin of the knight without giving him the benefit of full hearings. On March 12, says the chronicler, Burley and his associates were forced by the power of parliament to answer negatively or positively t o the sixteen charges brought against them. Despite the fact that he was so ill he had to be supported by Baldwin Raddington on one side and John Durant on the other, Burley answered "wisely", chiefly on the first article, acknowledging certain things and denying others. To the other charges Burley replied negatively. But parliament let the case rest and remanded Burley and his friends to the Tower. When the trial was resumed, parliament was asked by certain lords to give Burley further oppurtunity for defending himself; but the Commons brushed the request aside. The leading figure in the House of Lords opposing the appellants in the trial of Burley was the Duke of York. When he rose in full parliament and testified that the vice-chamberlain had been faithful in all negotiations to king and kingdom, Gloucester, without presenting evidence, gave his brother the lie and belligerently offered to prove Burley's falseness with his right hand. The trial was postponed for five days, but Burley was finally condemned to death, although Richard, Queen Anne, and other great persons pled for his life. The Monk of Westminster then alludes sympathetically to the long service Burley had given the crown, having attended Richard's father and mother and the king himself all during Richard's youth. 7 8 Further evidence that this chronicler felt the appellants had behaved in high-handed fashion and had gone beyond the law is found 76 trial 77 78

Apparently Tresilian was referring to the fourteenth-century concept that in the absence of the accused was illegal. Monk of Westminster, pp. 167-168. Monk of Westminster, pp. 170, 171, 153, 152, 173, 175, 176, 177, 155.

66

RICHARD S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

in the fact that he, uniquely, includes among the documents copied into his history the statute for the approval of all processes in this parliament, in which statute it is said that certain points were declared treason in this parliament which had not been treason by statute before, but that the general laws of treason had not been changed by the acts of this parliament; furthermore, the processes of this parliament should have force for this particular parliament only and should not be used as precedents for the future. 7 9 The avariciousness of the Gloucester party is perhaps indicated by the monk's note that, when taxes were granted to Richard just before the Easter recess of parliament, the appellants seized twenty thousand marks from the taxes for their expenses. Froissart's Version Froissart's account of Richard's behavior during this period is not very valuable because of its pervasive inaccuracy and confusion. Taking it for what it is worth, however, one notes at once that the French historian, who is generally sympathetic to Richard, does not favor the king in this episode. 8 0 But, on the other hand, neither does he praise the magnates. In fact, the French chronicler states that Gloucester and the Duke of York wanted to get rid of the king's advisers because, with the advisers present, they could not obtain favors from court for themselves. Moreover, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northumberland, in particular, says Froissart, resented the pressure that Ireland had put upon Richard in order to obtain for Neville's brother the lieutenancy of the Northumberland area — a position which normally would have passed from the Earl of Northumberland to his sons, Henry and Ralph Percy. In summarizing the reasons for Richard's unpopularity at this time, the French chronicler pictures the complaints against him as being 79 Ibid., p. 163. This statement should be compared with what is said by the continuator of Eulogium. See above, p. 57. so Froissart, II, 237-239, 263-282. Besides Froissart's chronicle, the only other French history to deal with this period, among those chronicles discussed in this book, is Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys, contenant le règne de Charles VI, de 1380 a ¡422, trans, [into French] by M. L. Bellaquet (Paris, 1839-40), I, 494, 496, 498. The Saint-Denys history, mildly favorable to Richard, is of little importance for this episode, for it is very sketchy and, like Froissart's account, has a number of obvious inaccuracies.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

67

threefold: the policy of peace, overtaxation and wasteful spending, and treachery among the king's advisers. The people of England remembered Edward III and the Black Prince and the gallant victories at Crecy and Poitiers; they mourned England's present lapse in military renown. Excessive taxes were being demanded, ostensibly for defense, although no enemies were visible. Formerly no taxes had been needed for warfare because the country had been made rich by conquest of France. Besides, money that could be used for defense was squandered; for example, the amount of sixty thousand francs received for the ransom of John of Blois was given to Neville and de Vere instead of being put into the public funds. Froissart seems to have believed it possible that the Gloucester party might even have considered the deposition of Richard. He expresses vexation and grief over the execution of Burley; and he also records the reswearing of allegiance to the king at the close of the parliament of 1388. 81

THE YORKISTS' ACCOUNT OF THE 1386-88 U P H E A V A L

The Yorkist chronicles which deal with this period are based on Lancastrian sources; but on the whole they alter their originals — in most cases cutting them drastically - in the apparent interest of achieving a more favorable picture of Richard and a less favorable one of the magnates. Capgrave's account, 8 2 the longest of the Yorkist histories for this period, follows Walsingham's Historia Anglicana mostly, but it omits all direct criticism of Richard and much other material that would be denigratory to the king. For example Capgrave leaves out the unflattering characterizations of the favorites given by Walsingham. He also omits the attempted arrest of Arundel at Reigate and the 81 For other references to the retaking of the oath of fealty, see above, p. 54, n. 50. 82 Capgrave, Chronicle of England, pp. 241-250. The other Yorkist chronicles dealing with this period are negligible for the events of 1386-88. They are: An English Chroincle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI, ed. Rev. John Silvester Davies, Camden Society, 1st Series (London, 1856), pp. 4-6 (hereafter referred to as Davies' Chronicle)-, A Short English Chronicle, pp. 26, 49-50; and Hardyng's Chronicle (revised version), pp. 341-342.

68

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

proposed trip to Canterbury for selling the French possessions. He too says that, at the close of the parliament of 1388, all three estates were made to renew their oath of allegiance to the king. 83

THE N O N P A R T I S A N S ' R E P O R T OF G L O U C E S T E R ' S OPPOSITION TO THE KING

Caxton's

Version

For this episode, Caxton 8 4 and Fabyan 85 can not truthfully be called impartial. But they achieve a kind of objectivity by following as a source one of the sparsest and most objective of the Lancastrian accounts, the Brut Continuation (Cambridge M S K k I 1 2 ) . Caxton follows his source almost word for word, calling the favorites of the king "rebellys", as the author of the Brut does. His only addition to the Brut version is the mention that Bealknap, Holt, Cary, Burgh, Fulthorp, and Lokton were exiled to Ireland. Fabyan s Version Fabyan apparently follows the same source as Caxton, but somewhat more loosely. By an occasional variation of phraseology, he causes the magnates to appear less aggressive and officious than Caxton and the Brut continuator do. For instance, the lords are said to have assembled at Radcot for a " c o u n c e y l l . . . entendynge reformación" of king and kingdom. Fabyan makes a number of errors in the transcribing of proper names: for example, he calls Robert de Vere "Lyonell", and Thomas Usk, "John"; he transcribes Burley's name as "Symonde of Beuerlay" and substitutes the name "Rycharde Gray" for "John Cary".

83 and 84 85

Capgrave, Chronicle of England, p. 250. For other mentions of this oath the probable reason for taking it, see above, p. 54, n. 50. Caxton, Higden's Polychronicon, VIII, 532. Fabyan, p. 534.

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

69

SUMMARY OF THE D I V E R G E N T ACCOUNTS OF R I C H A R D ' S D E A L I N G S WITH P A R L I A M E N T AND THE G L O U C E S T E R P A R T Y , 1386-88

The chroniclers of this period — Lancastrians, Ricardians, Yorkists, and non-partisans — picture the young Richard as what might be called a weak king, unduly influenced by his personal counselors, to whom, especially Robert de Vere, he was accustomed to show strong favoritism. Most of these historians also record that the king, upon the advice of his favorites, called together the justiciars of the kingdom and propounded to them certain questions calculated to show that Gloucester and his associates had violated the royal prerogative and had been guilty of treason in the parliament of 1386. Nevertheless, a number of pre-Yorkist English and French chroniclers show sympathy for Richard. They do this both by indicating the good qualities of the king and by pointing out the unscrupulous behavior of the magnates. Taken together, these Ricardian historians at their most sympathetic (1) speak of Richard as peace-loving, just, and religious; also they indicate, without saying outright, that he was loyal and courageous in supporting his friends in time of danger. (2) These same chroniclers portray Gloucester and his associates as motivated by ambition and jealousy of the favorites. (3) They state that it is always wrong for subjects to rise against their sovereign; yet, they report, the Gloucester party had collected forces, before de Vere raised an army in Chester, to ride against the king's representatives; Gloucester and his friends had twice threatened Richard with deposition, and they had instigated bloody and vengeful parliamentary action against the king's friends. (4) During the course of the "Merciless Parliament" they had violated both civil and religious law — the former by condemning the accused by assent of parliament instead of by trial and the latter by violating Tresilian's right of sanctuary. The result was the execution of a number of innocent persons. On the other hand, taken together the Lancastrian chroniclers at their most hostile (1) depict Richard as unduly susceptible to flattery and so bewitched by the influence of de Vere that he was incapable of judging between right and wrong. During the parliament of 1388, he is said to have tried to thwart the appellants at every step. (2) The appellants themselves are described as men of the highest honor, rising u p only from patriotic duty against those who had already collected

70

RICHARD'S DEFIANT DEALINGS WITH PARLIAMENT

forces for ruining them. (3) It is stated, in defense of their riding against the king, that by law of nature anyone has a right to repel violence with violence. (4) The proceedings of the "Merciless Parliament" are pictured as necessary to rid king and country of false traitors, and its victims are made to appear as wicked men well deserving their fate. Thus it happens that any number of Renaissance writers might well give as many varying accounts of the upheaval of 1386-88 — placing Richard almost anywhere on the scale from a weak king to a strong defendant of the royal prerogative, and the magnates anywhere on the scale from self-seeking rebels to disinterested patriots; and, at the same time, because the chronicles are so varied, all of these sixteenth-century writers might well be conscientiously adhering to the historical "facts" as each had found them in the particular chronicle that had fallen into his hands.

Ill RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST THE GLOUCESTER PARTY IN 1397

It was approximately a year after the close of the "Merciless Parliament" that Richard personally assumed the reins of his government (May, 1389). From that date for a span of more than eight years the king must have ruled with moderation and restraint, for the chronicles record little discontent with his government during this period. In fact, there is almost a decade in which, except for ecclesiastical affairs and various treaties with France, the chroniclers seem hard put to it to find significant material pertaining directly to Richard's conduct of his kingdom; and they fill up their pages with such politically inconsequential matters as miracles, the appearance of a cloud of gnats and of a dolphin, the death of the Earl of Pembroke at a tournament, and Henry Bolingbroke's exploits in Lithuania. Then suddenly, in July, 1397, the king arrested the Duke of Gloucester and the Earls of Arundel and Warwick without warning; the "second tyranny" had begun. In addition to the seizure of these lords, the former two being very popular with the commons, Richard committed another "tyrannical" act in the following year: this was the exiling of Hereford and Norfolk, followed by the sequestration of the Lancastrian estate, early in 1399. Both episodes loom large in the chronicle accounts of the last two years of Richard's reign. They also loom large in the sixteenth-century treatment of Richard's character and career based on these chronicles. Historian, poet, and playwright made the most of the dramatic situations. The contradictory accounts of these events, as they appear in the early chronicles, will be presented in Chapters III and IV. An interesting sixteenth-century account of Gloucester's downfall is given in an anonymous drama variously known as Richard II, The First Part of Richard II, Thomas of Woodstock, or Woodstock,1 1

Woodstock:

A Moral History,

ed. A.P. Rossiter (London, 1946), pp. 77-169.

72

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

which probably antedates by a few years Shakespeare's Richard II. This play is, for the most part, a dramatization of chronicle material covering the period from 1382 through 1397. Its representation of the king as totally guilty, in contrast, say, to the accounts of Holinshed and Daniel, who divide the guilt between Richard and Gloucester, is further evidence of the complexity of the picture of the king given in the chronicle literature of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Although the major fifteenth-century records of the tragic happenings of 1397 disagree in a number of particulars, there is still a common core of material which may be taken to represent the established facts of this episode, as follows: the king quite suddenly arrested Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick; these lords were appealed of treason in the parliament of September, 1397, by certain favorites of the king who charged them with armed riding against Richard in 1387, their pardons for the same having been revoked in this parliament; Gloucester died in Calais without appearing in parliament; Richard, earl of Arundel, having made a courageous defense, was nevertheless beheaded; Warwick was condemned to death, but, upon his confession, the sentence was commuted to exile; Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, was exiled without having the opportunity of answering the charges made against him; during all these proceedings, the king was constantly guarded by his Chester archers. From this framework the chroniclers burgeon into a variety of interpretations and of additional data ranging from bitter denunciation of the king to his complete exoneration. It is these contradictory accounts that will be analyzed in the present chapter. The materials can be most readily discussed under the following headings: (1) reasons for the king's arrests of the three lords; (2) methods of arrest; (3) certain features of the parliamentary proceedings and trials; and (4) the death of Gloucester.

THE LANCASTRIAN A C C O U N T OF RICHARD'S MOVEMENTS AGAINST

GLOUCESTER,

ARUNDEL,

A N D W A R W I C K IN 1 3 9 7

The Saint Albans chronicles, as usual, form a closely connected group denouncing the king. Anuales this time gives by far the most detailed and colorful account. The author of Annales flatly charges Richard with suddenly disturbing the kingdom through his "cunning, vanity,

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

73

and insolence" ("Regis astutia, levitate, et insolentia") 2 - and this at a time when an era of peace and prosperity seemed at hand. The king's seizure of Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick was due, it is implied, to his hatred for these lords, the reasons for which are not recounted. 3 The methods of arrest used by the king were altogether wicked and deceitful, according to this chronicle. First Richard had prepared a feast, to which he invited the three lords mentioned above and several others, so that on such an occasion he might capture many nobles together without a tumult. But Gloucester excused himself on account of grave illness. The Earl of Arundel, to whom the malice of the king was better known than to the others, 4 simply failed to come to the feast and awaited developments in his castle of Reigate, well fortified. Warwick alone came. To him the king behaved like an arch-hypocrite, says the annalist. He bade Warwick be of good cheer, promising to present him valuable lands. And then, following the feast, Richard had Warwick arrested and sent to prison until time for the parliament, "which he decided to hold for the destruction of many". 5 Next the king proceeded to the arrest of the Earl of Arundel. This he accomplished through Archbishop Arundel. He ordered the archbishop to persuade his brother, the earl, upon the promise of no bodily harm, to come into the regal presence. At first the earl resisted the suggestion, because he suspected the king was contriving to seize and kill him. The archbishop, however, having faith in the king, 6 insisted that his brother go, warning that otherwise the earl and his heirs would probably be disinherited. Then he called attention to a popular belief (given only in Annates) that offered the earl a plausible

2 Annates Ricardi Secundi, in Johannis de Trokelowe, et Henrici de Btaneforde, monachorum S. Albani, necnon quorundam anonymorum, chronica et annates, regnantibus Henrico Tertio, Edwardo Primo, Edwardo Secundo, Ricardo Secundo, et Henrico Quarto, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rolls Series (London, 1866), p. 201. 3 Ibid. 4 Reference is probably made to the blow Richard gave Arundel at Queen Anne's funeral (in 1394) for what he considered rude behavior on the part of the earl. (See Annates, pp. 168-169, A24 ;Historia Angticana, II, 215.) s Annates, pp. 201-202. 6 The archbishop's faith in the king could not have been long-lived, for in the coming parliament he himself was exiled. (See Annates, pp. 210, 213; Adam of Usk, pp. 154-156.)

74

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

explanation for the king's behavior. Richard, the people believed, wished to hold the three lords under arrest merely to show that he could control his nobles. He needed to do this to impress the German envoys, who had said that the one impediment to Richard's election as emperor was his lack of power over his lords. 7 When he had held the lords until their detention was known abroad, he expected to restore them to their former dignity. Therefore, concludes the chronicler, in an unfortunate hour the earl, upon the insistence of the archbishop, went before the king and was put under guard to await parliament. 8 Only Gloucester remained now to be caught. The author of Annales devotes much space to the arrest of this lord and gives many details not found in other sources. 9 The duke is portrayed as guileless, unsuspecting, obedient and true to the king, pious, courteous, and so self-collected that he was able to joke at the moment of his abduction, even though he was very ill at the time. In contrast, Richard is pictured as deceitful, fearful, sarcastic, and cruel. On the evening of the very day on which Arundel had been arrested, says the annalist, Richard set out for Gloucester's castle, Pleshey, in Essex, accompanied by certain armed lords and members of his household and by all the armed men and archers who could be collected in London within a few hours, they for the most part not knowing what plans were on foot. Having arrived at Pleshey — apparently after riding all night - the king reviewed his men (said to be fifteen thousand), then reconnoitred, for he feared the power and the prudence of the duke and was unwilling to attack until he knew the size of the castle's defense. It so happened that a great number of the duke's household were away, having been granted permission to visit their homes and wives. When the king heard that scarcely any protection remained for the duke, he was astonished, because his flatterers, whom he always believed, had informed him that Gloucester had secretly collected thousands of armed men for defense. Nevertheless, Richard was still so fearful that he approached the castle with his armed forces going before and behind him. 7 In 1 3 9 5 , Richard received, through the provost of Cologne, an o f f e r of election as king of the Romans, which may have been an Urbanist scheme to "detach him from the French plan of ending the schism by a joint withdrawal of obedience from both popes". (See Steel, pp. 2 2 8 - 2 2 9 . ) 8

Annales,

9

Ibid., pp. 2 0 3 - 2 0 6 .

pp. 2 0 2 - 2 0 3 .

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

75

Despite the fact t h a t he was gravely ill, the duke came t o meet the king's party with a solemn procession of his own priests and clerics and reverently and h u m b l y made obeisance t o Richard with bent knee. But the king immediately p u t his hand on Gloucester's shoulder and arrested him. H u m b l y the duke said that h e would willingly yield to his arrest. T h e n the king accompanied t h e procession to Gloucester's chapel; and when he saw the b o d y of the Lord placed in orderly m a n n e r in the midst of m a n y precious relics, he t a u n t e d his uncle thus: " H o w well, fair uncle, you k n o w h o w to d o when you w a n t t o . " 1 0 A f t e r mass, Gloucester, w h o had been warned b e f o r e h a n d of Richard's imminent arrival and had m a d e preparations for hospitality, provided a b o u n t i f u l breakfast for the king and his household. When the meal was over, the king rode away, leaving the duke in the c u s t o d y of the Earl of Kent and of T h o m a s Percy, seneschal of the royal household. Then the duke bade his wife good-by and asked her to assure the king that he had never been a traitor n o r wished to harm Richard. Having m o u n t e d his horse, he jokingly, though he was very sick, asked the lords with a glad c o u n t e n a n c e whether he or one of t h e m should lead the way. And so he was led t o Calais. T h e Annates account of the arrest of Gloucester ends with a c o n d e m n a t i o n of Richard f o r having seized his uncle at a time when the d u k e had just been showered with royal gifts, honors, and domains in a way that gave him every right to t h i n k the king felt most friendly to him. The a u t h o r of Annates reports that the arrest of the three lords was fulfillment of the following p r o p h e c y , for ten years noised abroad: Let the f o x with the tail beware, while the lark sings, Lest he be captured at the same time as the seizer of cattle and the horse. 11 The lines are interpreted in the chronicle as meaning that the f o x is Gloucester, in whose presence a f o x ' s tail was always borne u p o n a spear and w h o was captured by Richard early in the morning as the lark sang; Warwick, w h o bore the insignia of a bear, is the "seizer of c a t t l e " , and Arundel is the " h o r s e " . So great was the grief of the c o m m o n s at the capture of these lords, says the chronicler, that public m o u r n i n g was m a d e just as if the 10 11

ibid., p. 204. Ibid., p. 206.

76

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

kingdom had been destroyed by an enemy. For great hope had been placed in Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick, and especially in Gloucester since the commoners felt that while he was alive and well the country would be governed properly and protected from its enemies. The king, therefore, fearing an insurrection of the people, had it proclaimed: that this arrest of the lords was not made for any offenses committed formerly, but for new transgressions against the king, after they obtained charters of pardon for old crimes from the same; just as would be shown publicly to all the people, in the next parliament to come. 1 2 This proclamation was altogether false, says the chronicler, as the outcome of the affair proved. Meanwhile, Annates reports, processions and prayers were made throughout the kingdom that God should turn the heart of the king from hate to love toward the lords. The king, fearing that his cruel plan would be revealed if he were hindered from his malevolent purpose by the supplications of the Church, forbade the processions, as if he wished to prevent God from healing the sickness of his wicked will. 13 The Annates account of the trials of the three lords in the parliament that began on September 17, 1397, is bitterly hostile to Richard, stressing the tyrannical behavior of the king. 1 4 In the first place, the chronicler says, Richard ordered all the lords adhering to his party to come to parliament with armed men and archers as if they were at war and proceeding against an enemy. Also he accentuates the fact that the king collected a very large number of "malefactors from the County of Chester" in order that he might be able to carry out his mischievous purpose more effectively; these men are described as being naturally bestial and ready for any iniquity. Moreover, when the chronicler describes the hall built by order of the king within the 12 Ibid., p. 206. The Rolls o f Parliament do n o t record that any new charge was made against Gloucester in the parliament of September, 1397. Neither does any English chronicler clearly make such a statement. The French chronicles Saint-Denys and Traison seem to indicate that the Saint Albans plot, a new charge, was brought out in parliament. (See below, p. 9 0 . )

13 14

Ibid., p. 207. Ibid., pp. 208-218.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

77

precincts of Westminster Palace to house this parliament, he mentions the place set aside for the members of the third estate and adds that they "were not elected by the commons, as custom demands, but at the will of the king". 15 One of these irregularly elected knights, Sir John Bushy, Richard appointed speaker of the Commons for the present parliament. Here Annates inserts a vignette of those it calls the flatterers of the king. Bushy is described in especial detail as a very cruel man, ambitious beyond measure, and covetous of the property of another; and one who thought little of abandoning faith and conscience for wealth in lands and its consequent honors; nevertheless, he was gifted with wordly prudence, and shrewdness, abounding in eloquence beyond all the knights of his station. 16 Furthermore, the chronicler adds that Bushy paid not human, but divine, honors to the king, inventing curious words of adulation not suitable for mortals, "so that when he spoke to the king, sitting on the throne, he adored him with extended arms [and] supplicating hands, praying his, so to speak, noble, high, to-be-adored majesty that he would vouchsafe to grant this or that". 1 7 And the king, the chronicle continues, being young, seeking honors, and loving adulation, did not repress this flattery as he should. The chief associates of Bushy, no less than he in sins, were Thomas (Henry) Green and William Bagot; these were ready to say nothing which did not please the king and to propose and extort with importunate cries whatever found favor with his majesty. 18 Before such a tribunal Arundel was brought to trial. Stress is laid by Annates upon the forced revocation of the pardons granted to Arundel, Warwick, and Gloucester. 19 The king said they had been extorted from him and indicated by nods and gestures that

is Annates, p. 209. Neither Richardson nor Steel finds evidence that the parliament of September, 1397, was actually packed. (See H. G. Richardson, "John of Gaunt and the Parliamentary Representation of Lancashire", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXII [19381, 175-222, and Anthony Steel, "Sheriffs of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire in the Reign of Richard II", Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, XXXVI, 1-34.) 16 Annales, p. 209. 17 Ibid., p. 210. is Ibid., p. 209. 19 Ibid., pp. 210-212.

78

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

he held them of little value. Then the lords temporal and the lords spiritual, moved with fear, agreed that the pardons were revocable at the pleasure of the king. Only Archbishop Arundel and the justiciars objected, the former pointing out that he did not dare to call revocable any pardon issuing from a person so sublime as the king and the latter holding that the real traitors to the king were those who would deprive him of his chief prerogative, the foundation of the regal throne — his right to grant mercy to his delinquent subjects. Notwithstanding, reports the author of Annates, the pardons were revoked, against God and justice and against the regal personage. Also a more recent pardon, granted Arundel alone, 2 0 was revoked, the clergy either being terrified or having lost their senses, Annates concludes. Another tyrannical act of this parliament, effected by the king through Bushy, elicits the wrath of the chronicler: this was the coercing of the prelates, under threat of loss of their temporalities, to appoint a layman as their procurator for judgment of blood in this parliament. 2 1 One unnamed bishop held out against the infamy, but was soon hushed. Annates thus shows that the way had now been paved for the trials to take place without an allowable plea on the basis of the pardons and without the presence of the clergy, which would have made judgment of blood impossible. The Annates version of Arundel's trial adds further evidence of the unjust character of the parliament by indicating that Arundel, as well as the chronicler, believed that Richard had controlled the election of the Commons. When the earl, under questioning, was unable to deny armed riding against the king and was not allowed to plead his pardons, Bushy demanded judgment upon him as a traitor, in these words: " 'This, we, your faithful commons, ask and pray to have done.' " The earl, sufficiently humbly and without being at all perturbed, retorted: " 'The faithful commons do not ask this, but who you are I know well enough.' " 2 2 In addition to insisting upon the tyrannical nature of the parliament, Annates records as follows the mocking antics of the eight appellants suborned by the king — the Earls of Rutland, Kent, 20 A special pardon was freely granted to Arundel by Richard in I 394, when the king was no longer controlled by a Commission. (See Steel, p. 234.) 21 Annates, pp. 212-213. 22 Ibid., pp. 214-215.

79

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

Huntingdon, Somerset, Salisbury; the Earl Marshal 23 and the Lords (Thomas) Despencer and William le.Scrope, the latter being chamberlain of the king: " . . . with gambols and unbecoming leaping about, they resembled performers in the theatre more than knights or sober men. But beyond all, the Earl of Kent, his [Arundel's] sister's son, behaved himself ridiculously". 24 This account emphasizes Arundel's pious and courageous behavior after his condemnation. 25 He was led to the place o f execution by a band of Chester archers fully armed, by the Earl of Huntingdon, and by Mowbray (Arundel's son-in-law) and Kent (his nephew), whose presence Arundel rebuked. On the way from Westminster to Tower Hill, Arundel distributed alms to the poor. The people lamented the fall of so famous, rich, and noble a lord, admired at home and abroad for his integrity and military skill, and regretted that they were unable to rescue him from the hands of the armed men. Having arrived at Tower Hill, the earl was urged to confess himself a traitor to the king. This he emphatically refused to do, but added that he did confess his inability to please the king by "braying" ("ratione meae ruditatis"). 2 6 Throughout the proceedings o f his execution, to the very end, the earl did not flinch, "but, keeping always a uniform color o f face, he paled no more than if he had been invited to feasts". 2 7 At the moment of Arundel's decapitation, a miracle occurred, according to Annates:

the

headless body erected itself and stood alone long enough for the Lord's prayer to be said.28 Richard's j o y at the death o f his enemy did not last, continues the chronicler. 29

Soon he was disturbed in his sleep by the ghost of

Arundel flitting before his eyes, threatening him and terrifying him horribly. The king was afraid to sleep without the protection of three hundred Cheshiremen; and from that time on, his mind was so altered

23

Thomas

Mowbray,

earl o f

Nottingham, at this time earl marshal

of

England, had been one of the " o l d appellants" in 1388; he had since changed sides. Another " o l d appellant", Henry Bolingbroke, earl of Derby, also gave Richard support in this parliament. (See Adam Evesham, p. 137.)

24 Annates, p. 215. 25 Ibid., p p . 216-218. 26 Ibid., p. 217. 27 Ibid., p. 216. 28 ¡bid., p. 218. 29 Ibid., p p . 218-219.

of

Usk, p. 158; Monk o f

80

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

that he became more a tyrant than a king. His madness grew when he heard that the commons considered Arundel a martyr and that they believed the earl's head had miraculously grown back to his body. In consternation, Richard ordered several lords t o dig up the body by night. They found that the head had been sewed to the body with a thread, and they separated the two again. But the king, still not satisfied, ordered that the markings be removed from the grave and that the place of burial be covered with a pavement, to hide it from the common people. The behavior of Warwick during his trial, as pictured by the author of Annales, was just as cowardly as Arundel's bearing was courageous. 3 0 After Warwick had heard the appellation of treason read against him, he confessed his guilt, regretted that he had ever seen Gloucester and Arundel, and, with tears and moving sobs, humbly begged all present to intercede for him with the king. After this pusillanimous act, says the author of Annales, the king, his face clearing, said: "By Saint John the Baptist, Thomas of Warwick, this your confession is dearer to me than all the value of all the lands of the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel." 3 1 In response to prayers for leniency made by the Duke of Lancaster, the appellants themselves, and all others standing about, Richard commuted Warwick's death sentence t o life exile. A later reference to Warwick, to which the author of Annales adds what seems a puzzling statement for a Lancastrian chronicler to make, may throw light on the cause for Richard's pleasure over the earl's confession. This reference occurs in the account of the proceedings of the parliament held by Henry IV just after his coronation, in October, 1399. Warwick by that time had been returned from exile; when he heard read in parliament the assertion that he had confessed to treason in his trial of 1397, he denied it vigorously and asked that the record be corrected. As he said this, King Henry silenced him; and the chronicler offers the following explanation for Henry's move to suppress the earl's remarks: " a t the time at which he [Warwick] had confessed this, he also confessed that the holy abbot of Saint Albans, and the recluse of Westminster, had given him advice for attempting an undertaking for which, nevertheless, in the judgment of the

30 31

Ibid., pp. 219-220. Ibid., p. 220.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

81

King . . . ." 32 The word following "the King" in the manuscript is indistinct, according to H. T. Riley, editor of Annates, and the passage seems to be incomplete, perhaps purposely left so. 3 3 The broken sentence and the fact that the St. Albans chronicler did not include the above confession in the section describing the trial of Warwick may indicate that he was repressing material unfavorable to his monastery and to the Lancastrian dynasty. 3 4 Parliament's handling of Gloucester's case, as Annates tells it, is only a shade less denigrating to Richard than the handling of Arundel's trial. About this time (no exact date is given), the king, to fulfill his vengeance upon the Duke o f Gloucester, sent to Calais a certain justiciar, William Rickhill, who was to ask the duke whether he had made ridings against the king, to write down whatever Gloucester confessed on this subject, and to bring back to the king and parliament whatever he learned. 3S Rickhill did as he was required, but he reported to parliament the words of the duke in a different sense from that which Gloucester had intended. 3 6 The chronicler does not 32 Ibid., p. 308. The Abbot of St. Albans during the trouble of 1397 was John de la Moot. (See below, p. 206.) 33 Annates, p. 308, n. 3. 34 Steel explains Richard's joy in the following manner. At the time of the arrests, the king had good grounds for suspecting new treasons but no positive proof of them. Warwick's confession would supply the convincing evidence needed. The extravagance of the king's delight "lends some colour to the theory that a more detailed admission of recent treachery, whether hatched at Saint Albans or elsewhere, was in fact extracted from Warwick but ignored by the unfriendly chronicles and subsequently excised from the parliamentary roll". (See Steel, pp. 236-237. The existing roll, however, shows no sign of having been erased at this point.) Besides the king's joy at Warwick's "confession", another point sometimes brought forward as evidence that the Saint Albans plot really took place is the following sentence from Gloucester's confession: "Also, in that, that I was in place ther it was communed and spoken in manere of deposyl of my liege lord, trewly I knowlech wele that we were assented thereto for two dayes or three and than we for to have done our homage and our oothes, and putt him as heyly in hys estate as ever he was." This admission, however, may well refer to a threat of deposition in 1387 (see the Monk of Westminster, p. 109) instead of to a plan concocted at Saint Albans or elsewhere in 1397, for the very next article in Gloucester's confession denies that he made any move against Richard after their reconciliation in 1389. (The confession of Gloucester has been printed; see below, n. 36.) 35 Annates, p. 221. 36 Ibid. The original confession, including the portion supposedly omitted in

82

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

specifically state here that Gloucester, like Arundel and Warwick, was condemned in this parliament. The Saint Albans author turns immediately to the death of Gloucester, his sequence implying that the murder of the duke took place after the confession was read. 37[ The king, according to the chronicler, thinking he could execute the duke without public notice, ordered Thomas Mowbray, the captain of Calais, to kill Gloucester secretly. Mowbray, at first fearing to commit such a crime, delayed carrying out the command; wherefore, it is said, the king threatened to have the earl marshal himself put to death if he did not promptly do away with Gloucester. Thus driven, Mowbray led the duke from his prison in the middle of the night, as if for returning to England, and conducted him to a certain inn in Calais. Here Gloucester, removed from his familiar surroundings, was suffocated by four of the earl marshal's henchmen, who hurled feather pillows or feather beds upon his face and then stretched themselves on him, pressing violently and strangling him until he was suffocated. The Annales account of Gloucester's death ends with an encomium upon him: "And so died miserably this best of men, who for the profit and honor of the King, and the good success of the whole kingdom, sweated always until such a perfidious reward was returned to him in place of deserved benefits." 38 Upon the accession of Henry IV, an effort was made to identify both the nobles who had advised Richard to murder his uncle and also the menials who had actually performed the murder. The Duke of Albemarle, eldest son of the Duke of York, was accused by William Bagot of having told the king he would never enjoy his regal power unless Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick were killed. 39 John Hall also testified that, according to Mowbray, the order for the murder came

the parliamentary reading, has been printed by T. F. Tout and James Tait. The omitted parts include the date of the confession (September 8, 1397), a denial of any new offense, an insistence on purity of motive, and a strong plea for mercy. (See Historical Essays by Members of the Owens College, ed. T. F. Tout and James Tait (Manchester, 19021, pp. 205-208.) 37

Ibid. (For a discussion of the date of Gloucester's death and of the documents connected with it, see James Tait, "Did Richard II Murder the Duke of Gloucester?" Historical Essays, ed. Tout and Tait, pp. 193-214, and A. E. Stamp, "Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester", English Historical Review, XXXVIII, 249-251.) 38 Annales, p. 221. 39 Ibid., p. 304.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

83

f r o m Richard and the Duke of Albemarle. 4 0 In the parliament of October, 1399, the Earl of Salisbury was accused of being the cause of Gloucester's death, since he h a d betrayed the duke's confidences to the king. 4 1 The Bishop of Carlisle stated in this parliament that the death of the duke had been i m p u t e d to h i m , b u t claimed his i n n o c e n c e . 4 2 The actual murderers of Gloucester seem to have escaped. However, J o h n Hall was hanged u p o n confessing that Mowbray had forced him t o be present at the m u r d e r . 4 3 Also, in 1404, a certain Serle, once a servant of King Richard, was caught and put t o death for having suffocated Gloucester at Calais. 44 The other Saint Albans chronicles - O t t e r b o u r n e ' s Chronica and Walsingham's Historia Anglicana and Ypodigma Neustriae - follow Annates pretty closely in p o i n t of view and general outline; but they are m u c h thinner in picturesque, and sometimes in i m p o r t a n t , details. O t t e r b o u r n e ' s narrative is perhaps a trifle fuller than the o t h e r t w o . 4 5 Both of Walsingham's histories seem to imply that Gloucester was murdered before the day o n which he was s u m m o n e d to parliam e n t , since they give the following as Richard's reason for doing away w i t h h i m : " I t did not seem safe t o the king t h a t the D u k e of Gloucester should answer his accusations publicly, on account of the favor of the people". Besides these Saint Albans chronicles, another group of closely related Lancastrian histories can be distinguished, diverging in a n u m b e r of ways f r o m the Annales group. These include Adam of Usk's Chronicon,46 the Monk of Evesham's Vita,47 and the Continuation of the Polychronicon (Harleian 2 2 6 1 ) . 4 8 Perhaps Adam of Usk's record is the most i m p o r t a n t of the group since the a u t h o r was an eyewitness of the parliament of September, 1397. Usk attributes

the

40 41 42

Ibid., p. 309. ¡bid., pp. 313-314. Ibid., p. 314.

43

Ibid., pp. 309-311.

troubles

of

1397 to Richard's desire for

44 Ibid., p. 390. 45 Otterboume, pp. 189-194, 222; Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 223-226, 264; and Ypodigma, pp. 374-378. 46 Adam of Usk, pp. 152-63, 191, 257. 47 Monk of Evesham, pp. 131-162 and the appendix. 48 Poiychronicon, VIII, 499-503,510; this chronicle is a fairly close translation of the Monk of Evesham's Vita, without the Evesham appendix.

84

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

vengeance on the Gloucester party for their rebellion of 1386-88. His account is confined to the proceedings of parliament and therefore passes over the arrests of the lords. Usk begins by recording something Annates leaves out: the speech of the chancellor (Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter), setting forth the duties of this parliament and delivered in the form of a sermon on the text "that the power of the king lay singly and wholly in the king, and that they who usurped or plotted against it were worthy of the penalties of the law". 4 9 Next, in describing the charges brought against Gloucester and his associates, Usk records that the speaker of the Commons, Bushy, said to the king that Gloucester and the two Arundels traitorously forced "you . . . to grant to them a commission to govern your kingdom and to order its estate to the prejudice of your majesty and royalty". 5 0 The "ridings" 51 charged in Annates against Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel, and the Earl of Warwick become specifically, in Usk's Chronicon, "armed revolt at Haringay Park". 52 In relating how a procurator was appointed for the clergy, Usk records an incident that seems to have escaped the author of Annates. When the prelates withdrew, there was a bustle, says Adam of Usk. Thereupon, the king's archers, who, to the number of four thousand, surrounded the parliament-house, which was set up to this end in the middle of the palace-yard, thought that some quarrel or strife had arisen in the house; and, bending their bows, they drew their arrows to the ear, to the great terror of all who were there; but the king quieted them. 53 When he comes to the trial of Arundel, Usk includes two charges missing in the Annates version of the trial. The Earl of Derby said to Arundel:

49 so si

Adam of Usk, p. 152. Ibid., p. 153. Annates, p. 209.

52 Adam of Usk, p. 157. 53 Ibid., p. 154. T h e Monk of Evesham (pp. 133-134) says, fearing a brawl had started, t h e archers began to shoot, but t h e king stopped t h e m . The Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in the Brut, Part II, pp. 352-354, adds that, during this parliament, Mayor Richard Whittington and two sheriffs ordered strong watches of armed men and archers at every gate of Londen and in every ward.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

85

"Didst thou not say to me at Huntingdon, where first we were gathered to revolt, that it would be better first of all to seize the king?" 54 Arundel denied this. Then, according to the Chronicon, asked:

the king

"Didst thou not say to me, at the time of thy parliament, in the bath behind the White Hall, that Sir Simon Burley, my knight, was, for many reasons, worthy of death? And I answered thee that I knew no cause of death in him. And then thou and thy fellows did traitorously slay him." 5 5 It is not recorded that Arundel answered. Usk takes up Gloucester's condemnation after Arundel's. Unlike the author of Annates, he reports that a declaration was read in parliament from Mowbray, in whose custody Gloucester had been placed, saying that the duke could not appear at his trial, since he died in keeping. 56 The chronicler does not suggest at this point that Gloucester was murdered. Next Usk states that Rickhill read in parliament the confession of Gloucester, declaring it to be genuine and written by the duke's own hand. 57 The trial of the Earl of Warwick is handled by Adam of Usk in much the same way as it is treated by the author of Annales, without, however, a record of the joy of the king at Warwick's confession. 58 Another Lancastrian history for this period, the Great Chronicle of London,59 includes among the gravamina (articles of accusation against Richard later presented to the deposition parliament) references to the seizure and punishment of Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick and to the king's use of his Chester archers. The appendix to the Monk of Evesham's Vita also includes these references in the gravamina. Article 6 of the gravamina quotes Richard as proclaiming 54

Adam of Usk, p. 158.

55

Ibid.

56 Ibid., p. 160. Later, however, Adam of Usk (p. 191) notes that, in the parliament ending on September 30, 1399, Archbishop Arundel spoke of Richard's having stifled Gloucester in prison. 57 According to Rickhill's report to the first parliament of Henry IV, a clerk actually wrote the confession for Gloucester. (See Historical Essays, ed. Tout and Tait, pp. 199-200.) 58 Adam of Usk, p. 161. 59 Great Chronicle of London, pp. 57, 77-78.

86

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

the arrests were made "not for no gederynges confederacyes ne Rydynges... but for mony extorcions oppressions and other wronges"; yet, continues the Article, in parliament the lords were accused of the former offenses.60 The final Lancastrian chronicle considered for this period, the Continuation of the Eulogium,61 records that, despite the fact Richard had promised in 1388 not to bear ill will toward Gloucester and his associates, nevertheless, he was so evilly-intentioned toward them that Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick decided never, all three, to come into his presence at the same time. In connection with the annulment of the pardon granted Arundel, the continuation of Eulogium says that Richard canceled the earl's pardon "because that charter, as he said, was granted to the prejudice of the King, and because the King did not know at that time that matters were so hateful and prejudicial to his crown". 62 It is also added that, at the request of parliament, Derby and Nottingham, the two other "old appellants", were granted indulgence. The continuator of Eulogium is unique in his deliberate paralleling of the parliament of 1397 with that of 1388. Three times, the chronicler states, the proceedings of the "old appellants" were imitated in this parliament and the imitations carefully pointed out, twice by Lancaster and once by the king. The Duke of Lancaster, seneschal of England in 1397, said to Arundel: '"Because parliament has accused you, you deserve to be condemned without reply according to your law.' " 6 3 This, of course, was a reference to the fact that, in 1388, parliament agreed to substitute law by consent of parliament for the law of England, though during that session only.64 Again, when pronouncing sentence upon Arundel, Lancaster said: " ' . . . you shall be beheaded on Tower Hill

60 Ibid., p. 57. 61 Eulogium, III, 367,371-376. Two other chronicles written from the Lancastrian point of view, but not discussed here, narrate the events of this period: the Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in the Brut, Part II, pp. 351-366, which attributes the king's actions at this time to long-harbored hate; and Gower's Cronica Tripertita, Secunda Pars, lines 1-347, in The Complete Works, ed. Macaulay, IV, 320-329, which is, in essence, an outburst of indignation, in metaphorical and metrical language, against what Gower takes to be Richard's wickedness. 62 Eulogium, III, 374. 63 Ibid. 64 See above, p. 57.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

87

where Simon Burley was beheaded' ", 6 5 Finally, the king, obviously following the example of the earlier parliament, which had banished the1 Archbishop of York, caused the present parliament to banish the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he was not at peace. 66 The effect of this paralleling is to make Richard's acts of 1397 appear to be a deliberate piece of vengeance.

THE P R E - Y O R K I S T S Y M P A T H I Z E R S ' R E L A T I O N OF GLOUCESTER'S PROVOCATIONS TO THE KING A N D R I C H A R D ' S C O U N T E R M E A S U R E S

A sixteenth-century historian or poet perusing the Lancastrian version of the events of 1397 could not help feeling that Richard was motivated chiefly by hatred and vengeance; but if the Renaissance writer should turn to the pre-Yorkist English and French chronicles of the same period, he would find evidence that the king was amply justified in arresting the lords for self-protection. Both the Chronicque de la traison et mort and the Chronique de Saint-Denys describe a plot led by Gloucester, providing for the deposition of the king and the execution of his Council; apparently this conspiracy was entered into not many days before the first writ issued for the arrest of Gloucester. 67 The ultimate reason for this conspiracy, according to Traison, the older of these two French chronicles, was Gloucester's disapproval of the return of Brest to the Duke of Brittany. It was then, says the chronicler, that divisions began between Richard on the one hand and Gloucester, Arundel, and many other lords on the other hand. 6 8 The Monk of Saint-Denys, however, seems to think the return of Brest and Cherbourg was not really the cause of the trouble, for according to previous agreement the cities could be got back as soon as the sums for which they had been engaged were paid: 6 9 and this was consonant with law and reason. But Gloucester, Arundel, and 65 Eulogium, III, 375. 66 Ibid., p. 376. 67 The first proclamation for Gloucester's arrest was dated July 15, 1397; but it seems not to have been issued, for a second order was made out on July 28. (See Traison, p. 131, n. 1.) 68 Chronicque de la traison et mort de Richart Deux, roy Dengleterre, ed. and trans. Benjamin Williams (London, 1846), pp. 117-118. 69 Brest and Cherbourg had been pledged to the English in April, 1378, for

88

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

others, says the monk, were angry that Richard had acted without their consent, and they began to conspire against him. 70 Both Trai'son and Saint-Denys describe how Gloucester soon had an opportunity to defy the king openly on this subject. According to Trai'son, the soldiers released from Brest upon its surrender arrived at a feast given by the king and were received at dinner in his hall. Gloucester pointed out their presence to Richard and added that they had been badly paid and were now at loose ends. The king answered that they should be paid in full and commanded that four villages near London should be given up to them, where they might live at his expense until they received their due. Proudly the duke retorted: "Sire, you ought first to hazard your life in capturing a city from your enemies, by feat of arms or by force, before you think of giving up or selling any city which your ancestors, the Kings of England, have gained or conquered." 71 First having asked Gloucester to repeat his words, the king wrathfully made answer: "Do you think that I am a merchant or a traitor, that I wish to sell my land? By St. John the Baptist, no, no; but it is a fact that our cousin of Brittany has restored, and well and truly paid us the sum which our ancestors had lent him on the city of Brest; and, since he has honestly paid us, it is only just he should have his pledge back again." 72 The duke and the king parted civilly, but their mutual distrust continued. The Monk of Saint-Denys gives, in essence, the same account as the Trai'son author concerning the altercation between Gloucester and Richard. The Saint-Denys historian concludes that the duke, having conceived an implacable hatred toward his nephew, resolved upon the king's ruin and looked about for associates in a conspiracy. 73 This sympathetic version of affairs, it will be noted, is the exact opposite of the Lancastrian contention that the king's implacable hatred for the lords caused all the trouble. The Saint-Denys and Trai'son the duration of the war, in return for a sum of money and other grants. (See Steel, p. 230.) Cherbourg was redeemed in ] 393; Brest, in June, 1397. 70 Saint-Denys, II, 476. 71 Traison, p. 119. 72 Ibid., p. 120. 73 Saint-Denys, II, 4 7 6 , 4 7 8 .

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

89

chronicles give very similar accounts of the Saint Albans plot and the arrests that followed. Though Gloucester was ripe for mischief, he made no move, the Trai'son historian implies, until urged to action by the Abbot of Saint Albans and the Prior of Westminster. This a b b o t , 7 4 the godfather of Gloucester, invited the duke and the Prior of Westminster, a mutual friend, t o dinner at Saint Albans, where, it was revealed, both prelates had learned in visions that King Richard would lose his kingdom. And the abbot remarked to the duke: " ' . . . you can see how matters go when a king begins to give away his cities, which his ancestors have acquired by war, for gold or silver, as the King our Lord has begun to do' ", 7 5 Gloucester answered that matters should be remedied effectively, and soon after invited the abbot and the prior to a dinner at Arundel Castle, two weeks hence. After his return to London, Gloucester arranged for the feast at the Earl of Arundel's home and invited there four other lords, the Earls of Derby, Nottingham, and Warwick and Archbishop Arundel. Late in July, 1396 (really 1397), 7 6 these eight peers, says Trai'son, agreed " t o seize the noble King Richard, the Duke of Lancaster, and the Duke of York, and that they should be put in prison forever; and that all the other lords of the council of King Richard should be drawn and hung". 7 7 The plan was to be implemented during August. But Nottingham, the earl marshal, broke faith with the lords and informed the king of all their plans. Richard made the matter known to his Council and, upon their advice, rode at once to Pleshey, accompanied by his brother the Earl of Huntingdon and by the earl marshal and a strong body of armed men and archers. 78 Having left London at six in the evening, the company arrived at Pleshey before the duke was up and rode into the court of the castle with trumpets sounding. Hearing the noise, the duke hastily came down to welcome his sovereign; ordered to come along with the king, he answered that he would do so willingly. When the party had passed outside the gates of the lower court, the earl marshal was told to conduct Gloucester to 74 John de la Moot was Abbot of Saint Albans in 1397. (See above, p. 81, n. 32.) 75 Trai'son, p. 123. 76 See Traison, p. 125, n. 3. 77 Ibid., p. 126. It is interesting to note that Saint-Denys (II, 478) omits the Duke of Lancaster from the list of those to be imprisoned, his son, Derby, was one of the conspirators. 78 Traison, pp. 126-130.

90

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

the Tower of London, where the king would speak to him and nowhere else. But, says Trai'son, Richard never spoke to his uncle any more. At the same time Richard had set out to seize Gloucester, the chronicler continues, he had sent the Earls of Rutland and Kent with men-at-arms and archers to arrest' Arundel and then Warwick. All three lords were placed in the Tower of London. 7 9 It is difficult to decide whether the author of Trai'son believed that the three lords were accused in parliament of a new crime, the Saint Albans conspiracy, or only of the old offenses of 1386-88. When describing how the earl marshal swore t o the truth of the Saint Albans plot, the annalist adds: "And shortly after, these very words were plainly declared in open parliament, when the Earl of Arundel was condemned to death." 8 0 Also, when he comes to relate the condemnation of Arundel, the Trai'son historian says that, on the second day of parliament, "the King made his complaint of great treason which they had commenced against him and all the lords of his council. . . ." 8 1 Whether "great treason" refers to the Saint Albans conspiracy or to the riding against the king of a decade before, it is impossible to tell; however, the word "commenced" as applied to a treasonous deed seems more appropriate for the abortive Saint Albans plot than for the successful rebellion at Haringay. On the other hand, on the first day of parliament, according t o Trai'son — and so before the complaint of "great treason" was brought up — the king opened the session with the old charges against the lords. If the king really had at hand such fresh and devastating evidence of treachery as the Saint Albans plot, it is hard to see why he would harp on offenses ten years old. The Monk of Saint-Denys seems clearly to imply a belief that the three lords were accused in parliament of taking part in the conspiracy planned at Arundel Castle, 82 for, immediately after narrating that Mowbray revealed the plot and Richard imprisoned the peers as traitors, the monk adds that the king made his griefs known to parliament and exposed the treachery of the prisoners. 8 3 What the "griefs" were, is not explicitly stated.

79 so

Ibid., pp. 131-133. Ibid., p. 127.

«i

Ibid., p. 134. See above, p. 76, n. 12. Saint-Denys, II, 552.

82

83

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

91

In discussing the fate of the accused lords, neither the Monk of Saint-Denys nor the author of Trai'son exonerates the king from guilt in Gloucester's death; but Trai'son states that Richard laid the blame for Gloucester's death on the Duke of Albemarle. When Henry, accompanied by the Dukes of York and Albemarle, visited the king in the Tower, in September, 1399, Richard said to Albemarle: " ' . . . by you and your false counsel was my uncle of Gloucester put to death' In his narration of the events of 1397, Froissart twice mentions what undoubtedly must have been the Saint Albans plot, though he does not identify it by giving circumstantial details of the meetings at the abbey or at Arundel Castle, as both Trai'son and Saint-Denys do. First Gloucester, according to Froissart, sent for his nephew, John (sic), 85 earl of March, to come to Pleshey; here the duke divulged to his nephew a plot for deposing the king and queen and placing March on the throne. He was joined in these secret plans, the duke said, by Arundel, Warwick, Sir John Arundel, and many prelates and barons of England. March was thunderstruck, said he had never thought of such things, and got away as gracefully as he could. 8 6 Froissart's second reference to the plot records that positive information had been received by Richard that Gloucester and Arundel were conspiring to seize and imprison the king and queen and divide the kingdom among four regents in the following general fashion: Lancaster and York were to rule in the northern parts; Gloucester was to rule in the southwestern and southeastern areas, including London; and Arundel, in the central and southern sections. The chief design of the conspirators was to find some means of reopening the war with France. The queen was to return to France, if she liked, or to remain in England, but not as the companion of the king. In case of Richard's death before she was of proper age, 8 7 she was to be sent back to France. 8 8

84 Trai'son, p. 216. 85 Froissart means Roger, son of Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, and Philippa, daughter of Lionel, duke of Clarence. Roger was declared heir to the crown by parliament in the ninth year of Richard's reign. He was slain in Ireland in 1398. 86 Froissart, II, 637. 87 Isabella of France was only seven years old when she married Richard in 1396. 88 Froissart, II, 640-641.

92

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

Froissart never says directly that Richard's animosity toward Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick was aroused by the Saint Albans plot or by other actions of the lords; nevertheless, the picture he draws of Gloucester's activities at this period logically leads to such a conclusion. Furthermore, as the account in the chronicle develops, it becomes increasingly apparent that Froissart felt the real trouble lay not so much in the overt deeds of the duke as in his personality. Gloucester is portrayed as the very sort of man most likely to arouse the hatred of Richard, who, the chronicler says, was notoriously unwarlike by nature and had been brought up with a high sense of the royal prerogative. 89 The duke is pictured as possessing scarcely a good trait, though it is conceded that he had a good head. Ambitious for power, he took every means of gaining the love of the Londoners, believing the rest of England would follow whomever London favored. He supported violently his elder brother's claim to be lord of Aquitaine, for he was envious of Lancaster's superiority and was eager to get rid of him. He would have been well pleased to marry his daughter to the king if the king had not refused on the grounds of close kinship. Overbearing, opinionated, and proud, he would never yield to any man's opinion, and he opposed the king's counselors if he could not turn them to his will. Rough in manner, cunning and malicious, Gloucester was also exceedingly avaricious. Despite his wealth, he continually solicited favors from the king on the plea of poverty; "and he would not exert himself in any way to serve his king or country, if he were not well paid for it". 9 0 He was jealous of his two brothers because they generally resided with the king and declared openly it would be more decent for them to live at home. His brother York he particularly held cheap because York was guileless. According to Froissart, Gloucester "conceived a great hatred to his nephew" and showed him contempt on every occasion. 91 He told all his confidants that Richard was neither worthy nor capable of holding the throne and should be deposed. His bitterest jibes were directed at the king's wish to have peace with France. The kingdom, he said, possessed an unwarlike monarch, unwilling to fight any but the Irish, who were impoverished and not worth fighting. According to 89 90 91

Ibid., pp. 537, 576-577, 600, 637; see also Steel, p. 41. Ibid., p. 576. Ibid., p. 637.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

93

Froissart, the duke held out as long as possible against the signing of peace treaties between France and England, for the commons, Gloucester said, were eager to fight for riches and spoils. As for the duke himself, he would not keep any peace or truce. In addition to reciting and once or twice summarizing these affronts which Richard suffered at the hands of his uncle, Froissart also recalls the king's old grudges against Gloucester: the beheading of Simon Burley "without any title of reason or justice" and the banishment of the Archbishop of York and the Duke of Ireland. Although, without direct statement, Froissart makes it sufficiently clear that the king had abundant cause to check the subversive activities of Gloucester and his associates, yet, when he comes to the arrests and punishments, he joins the Lancastrian chronicles in condemning Richard's behavior, palliating, however, that behavior by noting that Richard's older uncles, Lancaster and York, failed to give him any constructive advice when the king exposed to them the machinations of the duke and his accomplices. The king's scheme to capture Gloucester, according to Froissart's account, was marked by guile and cunning even beyond that which the detracting chronicles record. On the pretense of deer hunting, Richard set out for a castle of his in Essex, then rode suddenly to Pleshey and asked his uncle to accompany him to London at once, saying there was to be the next day a citizens' meeting at which he would need Gloucester's advice. However, the king had left an ambush on the road to London, Froissart says; here the earl marshal, with a large group of men, arrested the duke and sent him to Calais. 92 Froissart does not chronicle the parliament of September, 1397; he simply records the execution of Arundel, the exile of Warwick, and the death of Gloucester, from which last event he in no way exculpates the king. Rather he says that, after four men had strangled Gloucester with a towel, they, "properly instructed what t o say and how to a c t " , 9 3 declared the duke had been seized with a fit of apoplexy. The pre-Yorkist English chronicles Dieulacres and Kirkstall are the most favorable of all toward the king during this period. The former seems t o picture Richard as the divinely appointed instrument of

92

Ibid., pp. 643-644, 655-656.

93

Ibid., pp. 656-657.

94

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

justice; the latter, as a strong king asserting the royal prerogative naturally accruing to his t h r o n e . Immediately after affirming the absurdity of a subject's insubordination to his sovereign, apropos of Gloucester's rebellion in 1387, Dieulacres states: "But because n o evil will be unpunished, God enlightened the heart of the king t h a t he should punish the aforesaid rebels in a certain w a y . " 9 4 T h e n the chronicle proceeds at once to a brief a c c o u n t of the arrests, trials, and punishments. By this chronicler alone, Richard is exonerated unequivocally in the death of his uncle: Gloucester died at Calais "by what death God knows, the just king not consenting", although m a n y nefarious liars, from malice or suggestions of the devil, accused the i n n o c e n t king of the death and b a n i s h m e n t of the lords. 95 The Kirkstall Chronicle, like the Dieulacres Chronicle written by a religious, takes a much more wordly point of view. 9 6 The historian of Kirkstall says that Richard, recalling the wrongs inflicted u p o n him in 1388, decided to punish these injuries a n d endeavored t o bring the k i n g d o m u n d e r his control. It is n o t clear w h e t h e r the writer intended t o imply t h a t the government had been o u t of Richard's c o n t r o l ever since Gloucester's uprising of 1386-1388 or that more recent a t t e m p t s of the d u k e ' s party t o seize direction of affairs had reminded the king of the old rebellion and decided h i m t o assert his p o w e r over the lords at o n c e . At any rate, the main point of t h e chronicler seems to be that Richard u n d e r t o o k to vindicate his a u t h o r i t y — and succeeded gloriously. A f t e r a brief narration of events leading to the punishm e n t s , Kirkstall notes, apparently t o d e m o n s t r a t e the working o u t of justice, that Arundel was beheaded in the place where Burley had been e x e c u t e d . The chronicler makes the violent death of Gloucester at Calais a m a t t e r of hearsay ( " a s it is said b y the c r o w d " ) . 9 7 Kirkstall concludes this episode with a grandiloquent m e t a p h o r t o the e f f e c t t h a t t h e king has now established his majesty, which shines brightly over the kingdom: with admirable and long-lasting patience becoming a king, a certain sun was formerly covered with a cloud, that is, the regal majesty [was obscured] by the might of another; but now, leaping in arms upon the 94 95 96 97

Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 168. ibid., p. 168. Kirkstall Chronicle, pp. 129-131. Ibid., p. 130.

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

95

mountains and passing over the hills, he [the king] has tossed about the clouds and the sun and has brought out the light of the sun more clearly. 98 THE Y O R K I S T S ' R E P O R T OF THE T R O U B L E S OF 1397

The Yorkist chroniclers, as usual, feel no obligation to defend Richard's behavior unless by doing so they can build up the case against Henry. And the conduct of Henry (then earl of Derby) toward the crown seems to have been unimpeachable during this period, unless, indeed, Derby was one of the conspirators in the Saint AlbansArundel plot. Apparently the report of this conspiracy — or at least the rumor of Derby's participation in it had not come to the notice of the leading Yorkist chroniclers, for none of them mentions it except the author of the unique Lambeth 84 manuscript of the Brut. This chronicler gives a watered-down account of the plot at Arundel Castle, omitting the preliminary intrigue at Saint Albans and leaving out from the list of conspirators the names of Derby, the Abbot of Saint Albans, and the Recluse of Westminster. Gloucester and his associates are said to have met at Arundel Castle only "for to refourme the rewle aboute the Kyng". 9 9 In mentioning Gloucester's "confessyon of treason . . . Of ix p o y n t e s " , 1 0 0 the Yorkist version of Hardyng's Chronicle refers to what might have been another recent provocation to King Richard besides the Saint Albans plot, for one of these points confesses a plot for the temporary deposition of the king, just possibly in 1397 (though more probably in 1387), whereas the Saint Albans plotters, according to Trai'son and Froissart, intended the permanent deposition of Richard. 101 98 Ibid., p. 131. As Clarke and Denholm-Young point out (see M. V. Clarke and N. Denholm-Young, "The Kirkstall Chronicle, 1355-1400", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XV [19301, 131, n.l.), a reference is probably made to the emblem of the rising sun, which Richard adopted about this time. 99 The Brut, Part II, pp. 588-589. 100 Hardyng, Chronicle, p. 345. According to James Tait, Rickhill described the confession as having nine points, obviously including the three exculpatory and deprecatory clauses with which it ends. There were only six points in the confession that was published in the counties of England. (See Tait, "Did Richard II Murder the Duke of OloucesteiV Historical Essays, ed. Tout and Tait, p. 207, n. 30.) 101 See above, p. 81, n. 34, pp. 89 and 91.

96

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

The other Yorkist histories, 1 0 2 besides the Lambeth Brut and Hardyng's Chronicle, follow pretty much the Lancastrian version of this period so that, on the whole, the Yorkist picture of the misfortunes of 1397 is unfavorable to Richard.

THE N O N P A R T I S A N S ' VERSION OF THE E V E N T S OF

1397

Both Caxton and Fabyan achieve reasonably impartial accounts of the events of 1397, the former being the more objective. 1 0 3 They seem to do this by following the somewhat Ricardian Lambeth version of the Brut Continuation in recording the reasons for the arrests and a less favorable standard version of the Brut Continuation, such as Cambridge MS Kk 1 12, in the rest of their narratives. Caxton is mildly favorable to Richard in mentioning Gloucester's provocation of his sovereign: the hot-headed denunciation of Richard for the return of Brest and the formation of a conspiracy t o reform the government. Fabyan, too, details Gloucester's offenses against Richard, but he achieves a slightly hostile view of the king by stating that Richard acted "by sinister counceyll". 1 0 4 Fabyan expands his source into a fuller story of how the Saint Albans-Arundel plot got started. It is said that Gloucester, seeing the king misled and intending reformation for the kingdom, opened his mind to the Abbot of Saint Albans and to the Abbot and the Prior of Westminster and, upon their advice, called a meeting at Arundel Castle for two specific purposes: (1) to take away authority from certain lords about the king, such as Lancaster and York; (2) to discharge and punish other lords thought prejudicial to the kingdom. This version of the purpose of the conspiracy makes Gloucester seem more culpable than the Lambeth Brut and the Caxton versions do, but less culpable than the deposition plan described in Traison, Saint-Denys, and Froissart's chronicle. Although both Caxton and Fabyan say that the arrests of the lords 102 The other Yorkist chronicles that concern this period are the following: ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations by Peter of Blois and Anonymous Writers, trans. Henry T. Riley (London, 1854), p. 352; A Short English Chronicle, p. 27; Davies' Chronicle, pp. 8-12; and Capgrave's Chronicle of England, pp. 264-266. 103 104

Caxton, Higden'sPolychronicon, Fabyan, p. 5 4 1 .

VIII, 5 3 6 - 5 3 7 ; Fabyan, pp. 5 4 1 - 5 4 3 .

RICHARD'S ACTIONS AGAINST GLOUCESTER

97

were due to Richard's discovery of the Saint Albans plot, both historians give sparse accounts of how the arrests were made, of the trials, and of the death of Gloucester, cutting out what must have seemed to them the most prejudiced Lancastrian material, such as the fraud practiced in the arrests; the charge of a packed parliament; the crooked reading in parliament of Gloucester's confession; and details of the duke's death. But both nonpartisans do state unequivocally that Gloucester was murdered at Calais.

SUMMARY OF THE D I V E R G E N T R E P O R T S OF

RICHARD'S

A C T I O N S A G A I N S T T H E G L O U C E S T E R P A R T Y IN 1 3 9 7

From the wealth of chronicle material about the upheaval of 1397, Richard emerges, on the whole, as cunning, tyrannical, and cruel; yet he is not unanimously portrayed as acting without right reason and justification. The Lancastrians, it is true, attribute Richard's actions to his hatred for the Gloucester party; but the three major French chronicles for this period elaborate the provocations which Gloucester gave his monarch. The former group, of course, dwell on the reprehensible behavior of the king, while the latter devote much space to justifying Richard's conduct and comparatively little space to describing the conduct itself. In Caxton and Fabyan and to some degree in Froissart, a sixteenth-century writer would find some basis for an impartial account, since all these chronicles divide the blame for the tragedy of 1397 pretty evenly between Gloucester's ambitious plotting and Richard's deceitful and despotic methods of proceeding against the lords. The answers of the chronicles to the four focal questions of this episode are clouded with doubt. Surely it would not be clear to Shakespeare and his contemporaries, if they read the old chronicles at first or second hand, (1) whether Richard was indulging a desire for vengeance or simply taking reasonable precautions against Gloucester's ambition; (2) whether the king captured the lords by trickery or by direct arrest upon the discovery of a conspiracy; (3) whether or not the trials of 1397 were at least as fair as those of the "Merciless Parliament" in 1388; and, finally, (4) whether Gloucester died violently by order of his nephew or from unknown, and perhaps natural, causes.

IV THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK AND THE SEQUESTRATION OF THE LANCASTRIAN ESTATE

Many historians say that Richard's action in exiling Hereford and Norfolk and sequestering Hereford's estate marks the beginning of the revolution that led ultimately to his overthrow. The most famous literary account of this episode appears in Act I of Shakespeare's Richard II. Black, editor of the variorum edition of this play, presents evidence to show that Shakespeare could have drawn his historical material for the quarrel between Hereford and Norfolk from four chronicles and a verse history. 1 To examine these original sources, and others that may not have been available to the playwright, is to appreciate anew the genius of the man who could create a consistent and believable character from such a mass of confusing material. The confusion emerging from the various accounts of this episode leaves only a few simple facts upon which the chroniclers agree: Hereford and Norfolk had a quarrel; in 1398 they accused each other of treachery before the king and demanded the right of trial by combat; the king exiled Hereford for ten years and Norfolk for life and, in 1399, upon the death of John of Gaunt, sequestered the estate Hereford inherited from his father. The chroniclers vary chiefly in the accounts they give of: (1) the cause of the quarrel; (2) Richard's attitude toward the duel; (3) his motives in decreeing exile; and (4) contemporary reactions to the exiling and/or to the sequestration. Since Richard took no active part in the beginning of the quarrel, the first point is included principally to supply background for the whole episode of the exiling and will be traced through the chronicle literature separately from the other points. It should be noted that the chronicles, when treating the cause of the quarrel, disregard party l Matthew W. Black, "The Sources", Appendix, The Life and Death of King Richard the Second, in A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, pp. 405-505.

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

99

lines in their uniform condemnation of Norfolk and in this way indirectly condemn Richard, since Norfolk was admittedly a favorite of the king. 2 Most of the writers say the quarrel arose from a conversation between the two lords in which Norfolk made seditious remarks that Hereford promptly betrayed to the king. According to Froissart, however, it was Hereford who spoke the traitorous words and Norfolk who did the informing. The Dieulacres Chronicle reports that the two dukes made treasonable plans together and Hereford betrayed them to the king. 3 Various accounts give different impressions of the seriousness of the words in question. The Saint Albans writers put the matter mildly, simply saying Norfolk spoke words redounding to the dishonor of the king, but not quoting the words. 4 Froissart does quote the words, attributing them to Hereford and maintaining that they were guileless and spoken on assumption of Norfolk's good faith: " 'Holy Mary! fair cousin, what does the king next intend to do? Will he drive all the nobles out of England? There will soon be none left; and he plainly shows he is not desirous to add to the honour of his realm.' " 5 Froissart blames Norfolk severely for breaking faith with Hereford and pictures him as an ambitious oppurtunist impelled by fate and the devil.6 The Monk of Evesham, implying greater seditiousness, quotes Norfolk as saying to Hereford that the king's word could not be trusted, that he had exiled or killed most of his nobles and in the future he would destroy them, too. 7 In the Continuation of Eulogium and in Davies' Chronicle the words are even stronger: Norfolk told Hereford that the order for their death had already been decreed. 8 Two French sources, Traison and Chronique de Saint-Denys, imply that it was not the conversation between the dukes at all that started the quarrel, but rather three clear-cut charges which Hereford made

2 See Froissart, II, 658. 3 Froissart II, 661; Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 169. 4 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 227-228, and Annates, p. 225; Otterbourne, p. 195. s Froissart, II, 661. 6 Ibid. 7 Monk of Evesham, pp. 145-146. 8 Eulogium, III, 379; Davies' Chronicle, p. 13.

Ypodigma,

p. 379;

100

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

against Norfolk at the hearing before the king in Windsor Castle. 9 It is to this version of the controversy, incidentally, that Act I, scene i, of Shakespeare's Richard II may be ultimately traced. Hereford's charges were the following: (1) as captain of Calais, Norfolk received from the king eight hundred thousand nobles 1 0 to pay the soldiers, but he did not pay them as he ought - "this is great treason and calculated to cause the loss of your city of Calais"; (2) " . . . he has been at the bottom of all the treasons committed in your kingdom these last eighteen years"; and (3) he "has, by his false counsel and malice, caused to be put to death my dear and beloved uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, son of King Edward". 11 Norfolk did not give direct answers to each of the accusations; instead he made a general statement that all of Hereford's words were falsehoods, and he accused Hereford of having been more disloyal toward the king than he himself had ever been "in intention or in deed". He admitted that he had received gold from the king, with which he had paid the people of Calais, and maintained that Calais was as much as ever in the king's command and that no person of the town had lodged complaint against its captain. He added that he had never been reimbursed for expenses incurred on his trips to France and Germany on Richard's behalf. 12 But Norfolk confessed that he had once laid an ambush to kill Lancaster; for this the king, however, had forgiven him and he had made peace with Lancaster. 13 Several chronicles give both the conversation and the accusation versions of the cause of the quarrel. The Continuation of Eulogium and Davies'Chronicle not only record the conversation but also report that Hereford charged Norfolk with the murder of Gloucester. 14 Fabyan points out, impartially, that he is citing two versions of the cause of the quarrel. First he records the charge of misappropriation of the 9

Traison, pp. 146-147;Saint-Denys, II, 670. Shakespeare says eight thousand nobles. 11 Traison, pp. 146-147. 12 Ibid., pp. 147-148. 13 This ambush was laid, according to Adam of Usk, when Gaunt was on his way to the Shrewsbury Parliament, January 27, 1398. (See Adam of Usk, p. 169.) However, Maunde Thompson, the editor of Adam of Usk's Chronicon, points out in a note on this passage that such a plot could hardly have taken place so late in the reign. He thinks it occured in 1384 when Gaunt is said to have refused to attend parliament, fearing a plot against his life. (See Monk of Evesham, p. 57.) 14 Eulogium, III, 379; Davies' Chronicle, p. 13. 10

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

101

Calais money — given here as f o u r thousand marks. (He does not m e n t i o n the charges of murdering Gloucester and of participating in plots.) Then he gives the conversation between the dukes, according t o the Monk of Evesham's version. 1 5 Once the t w o dukes had declared their grievances before the king and his Council, Richard assumed a p r o m i n e n t role in the colorful drama. The c o n t e m p o r a r y accounts are as complex a n d contradictory about what he did and why he did it as they are about h o w the quarrel began.

LANCASTRIANS' ACCOUNT OF THE DUEL, EXILING, AND SEQUESTRATION Adam of Usk takes the lead in establishing the legend of Richard's wickedness in connection w i t h the quarrel b e t w e e n Hereford and N o r f o l k in 1398. According to h i m , the king decreed the duel between the lords; and, "because [the king] had it by divination that the duke of Norfolk should then prevail, he rejoiced m u c h , eagerly striving after the destruction of the duke of H e r e f o r d " . 1 6 Richard, in Usk's version, even allowed the lords to begin the actual dueling; b u t , when it seemed t o him that Hereford would prevail, he, shamelessly refusing to allow God t o speak in the o u t c o m e of the battle, stayed the fight17 and banished b o t h dukes, "laying perpetual exile on the duke of Norfolk, yet being m i n d e d , when he should find occasion, to restore h i m " . 1 8 T h e picture is one of crass o p p o r t u n i s m o n the part of Richard t o forestall the defeat of N o r f o l k — w h i c h might have been interpreted as j u d g m e n t against the king, says Usk, for his forcing N o r f o l k to m u r d e r Gloucester. Before he mentions the sequestration of Henry's estate, A d a m , w h o was a lawyer and always interested in the legal aspects o f the story, notes indignantly that, in the parliament of Shrewsbury, " t h e king got the whole power of the government t o be given over t o him and to six others t o be named b y him for the term of his life, where is Fabyan, p. 544. 16 Adam of Usk, p. 171. 17 Benjamin Williams, editor of Trai'son, shows by example that it was not unusual for a king to stop a trial by combat in order to prevent effusion of noble blood. (See Traison, pp. 155-156, n. 1.) is Adainof Usk, p. 171.

102

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

and w h e n he s h o u l d please". It w a s b y a u t h o r i t y o f this C o m m i s s i o n , the chronicler says, that Richard c o n d e m n e d H e r e f o r d t o perpetual exile and seized all his g o o d s . 1 9 A s c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d , all the Saint A l b a n s chroniclers h e l p

to

establish the unfavorable legend o f Richard. N o n e o f these a c c o u n t s m e n t i o n s a m o v e o n Richard's part t o m a k e p e a c e b e t w e e n the dukes. N o n e o f t h e m p u t s into the king's m o u t h at t h e t i m e o f t h e duel any j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r his banishing o f t h e lords. All o f t h e m c o n d e m n the s e n t e n c e as unjust. Annates,

f o r e x a m p l e , says that, a l t h o u g h the king

had but r e c e n t l y proclaimed Hereford's h o n o r a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t o f his duty, nevertheless, i m m e d i a t e l y afterwards, the king, w i t h o u t a n y legitimate cause w h a t s o e v e r , made and d e c r e e d the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d d u k e t o be banished f o r ten years, against all justice, and military laws, and c u s t o m s of t h e k i n g d o m . 2 0

19 Ibid., p. 172. Adam of Usk is not accurate here. By a petition of the Commons, a committee of eighteen, including the Duke of Lancaster, was set up on the last day of the Shrewsbury Parliament t o deal with outstanding petitions and with the Hereford-Norfolk controversy. (See Steel, pp. 244-249.) After the death of the Duke of Lancaster (February 3, 1399), this committee was revived and its powers were extended, according to Tout, to cover "all other matters" brought before the king. (See Steel, p. 248, n. 1., referring to T. F. Tout, Chapters in Mediaeval Administrative History [Manchester, 1920-331, IV, 38.) Steel thinks this action was taken for the specific purpose of authorizing the revocation of Henry's letters patent. The powers were extended, it seems, by means of a falsification of the Rolls of Parliament. Steel ponts out that there are three existing manuscripts of the parliament roll of 1397-1398, " t w o of which express the committee's powers in narrower terms than the third", this last being considered by him a falisfied roll. (See Steel, p. 247, n. 3.) Both Annates and the Monk of Evesham, in listing the gravamina of 1399, record that the king had this change made in the roll: "Rex fecit Rotulos Parliamenti pro voto suo mutari et deleri, contra effectum concessionis praedictae." (See, Annates, p. 264; Monk of Evesham, p. 190.) 20 Annates, p. 226. Agreeing essentially with Annates in its disapproval of Richard's behavior during this episode are the following other Lancastrian chronicles: Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 228, 230, and Ypodigma Neustriae, pp. 379-382; Otterbourne, p p . 1 9 6 , 198; the Continuation of the Polychronicon (Harleian MS 2261), in Polychronicon, VIII, 505; Gower, Cronica Tripertita, Tercia Pars, lines 81-82, 85-88, in The Complete Works, ed. Macaulay, IV, 332; the Continuation of the Eutogium, III, 379; the Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in IheBrut, Part II, p. 3 5 5 ; a n d the Great Chronicle of London, p. 48.

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

103

Upon the d e a t h of Gaunt, Annates reports, the king, "taking the o p p o r t u n i t y of maligning Lord H e n r y " , decreed that Hereford's exile should be perpetual and revoked the letters p a t e n t formerly granted him. This act, which a m o u n t e d to the sequestration of G a u n t ' s estate, showed, according to Annales, that the king hated Hereford and that his claim t o have exiled the dukes in order t o prevent discord among their retainers was only a hollow p r e t e x t . 2 1 Richard's ulterior motive was " t h a t , through the o p p o r t u n i t y of this banishment, he might be able t o thrust him into exile for his whole life and thus lay hands u p o n his possessions". 2 2 Although in the appendix to his history the Monk of Evesham is generally as hostile to the king as are the Saint Albans chroniclers, nevertheless, in the main p o r t i o n of his history the m o n k is m u c h milder in his t r e a t m e n t of Richard's behavior. The king is said t o have permitted the duel "as a precautionary m e a s u r e " ("praestita c a u t i o n e " ) 2 3 since he could n o t determine which lord was telling the truth. The king banished Hereford, says the m o n k , " f o r a certain lack of obedience rendered against the k i n g " . 2 4 He banished N o r f o l k for misappropriation of the Calais funds.

THE PRE-YORKIST SYMPATHIZERS' DESCRIPTION

OF

RICHARD'S CONDUCT IN THE H E R E F O R D - N O R F O L K AFFAIR The Ricardian chroniclers d o m u c h t o counteract the Lancastrian slant of the Saint Albans group; b u t they d o not achieve a wholly favorable picture of Richard. Both Traison a n d Chronique de SaintDenys, however, d o show Richard in the benevolent role of peacem a k e r between the quarreling dukes. When H e r e f o r d and Norfolk appeared before the High Court of Justice, says Traison, t h e king caused b o t h dukes t o be asked if they would not make peace, saying " i t would be m u c h b e t t e r " and he 21 Annales, pp. 232-233. 22 /bid., p. 233. 23 Monk of Evesham, p. 146. See also the appendix to the Evesham Vita, p. 191. 24 Ibid. Whether this veiled phrase refers to Hereford's refusal to obey the king's request for reconciliation with Norfolk or to a possible plot Hereford may have been involved in can only be conjectured. Its obscurity, nevertheless, protects Richard.

104

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

would pardon all they had said or done against him or the kingdom. They refused. Then the king in person besought them to make peace, and again they refused. Finally, when the dukes came to hear the Court's decision as to whether they should be granted the right of combat, the king for the third time desired them to agree. For the third time they refused. And so Bushy, on the part of the king and Council, ordered the trial by combat at Coventry. 25 The Monk of Saint-Denys, too, stresses Richard's attempts at reconciliation through the medium of eminent lords, but does not mention the king's personal interposition. At the point at which the king grants the request for trial by combat, the Saint-Denys Chronique, alone among the contemporary sources, inserts a picture of Richard as stern dispenser of justice. Gaunt, the chronicler says, without thinking of the reparation due to the accused, kept asking, up to the day of the combat, for the revocation of the duel on the grounds that the dukes were unequal in rank. 2 6 Richard refused to recall the proclamation for the duel. Then one day Gaunt asked what the king would do if Henry succumbed in the trial by battle. Richard answered sternly, but righteously, that he would have Gaunt's son hanged if he were conquered and that, in like circumstances, Gaunt would fare no better. Trai'son and Saint-Denys agree that, when the dukes appeared in the lists, Hereford placed his lance on his thigh and advanced seven or eight steps toward his adversary, who remained motionless and made no gesture of defense. Saint-Denys records that the king, responding at the last moment to the importunate entreaty of the friends of Lancaster, commanded the combat to be stopped. 27 Then, Trai'son adds, each duke was led back to his chair and kept waiting there for two hours. Finally, Bushy, holding a large roll of writing, stood and proclaimed the decision of the king and his Council. Both dukes were to be exiled, Hereford for ten years and Norfolk for life, "because the matters are so weighty between the two lords", 2 8 says Trai'son', "since he [the king] considered their loyalty suspect", 2 9 reports the author of Saint-Denys, who seems to imply that Richard was with difficulty

25 26 27 28 29

Traison, pp. 145-149. Saint-Denys, II, 672. Ibid., p. 674. Trai'son, p. 157. Saint-Denys, II, 674.

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

105

restrained f r o m giving the death sentence. According t o Trai'son, N o r f o l k received n o t only the longer sentence of exile b u t also a decree that the revenues f r o m his lands (excepting a grant for his s u p p o r t ) should come to the royal exchequer " t o reimburse the m o n e y that he had received f o r the p a y m e n t of the garrison of Calais, and m i s a p p l i e d " . 3 0 When the people heard the verdict against the dukes, it is recorded by Trai'son, they marveled and m a d e so m u c h noise that they could not hear one another speak, because t h e y t h o u g h t Henry must have forfeited his h o n o r ; it is n o t recorded in this account that Richard corrected their surmise. 3 1 Trai'son, however, is favorable to Richard in that it does not m e n t i o n his sequestration of Hereford's estate, except by implication when it later records N o r t h u m b e r l a n d ' s a n n o u n c e m e n t that Hereford had returned f o r the recovery of his lands. 3 2 Though the authors of b o t h Trai'son and Saint-Denys are generally friendly to Richard and do n o t suggest that he had ulterior motives for the exile, as the Lancastrians do, yet b o t h writers end their accounts of the banishment on a n o t e of unfriendliness t o the king. Traison records the following speech that N o r f o l k is said to have m a d e t o his retainers after the sentence had been p r o n o u n c e d : " 'We might as well have gone t o the great Parliament at Shrewsbury, for if he and I had gone there we should b o t h have been p u t t o death as the Earl of Arundel was.' " 3 3 Even t h o u g h N o r f o l k ' s statement should n o t be taken very seriously, since he must have been bitter at the sentence imposed u p o n him, still there are t w o interesting implications t o be n o t e d : (1) t h a t Hereford and Norfolk had n o t dared to attend the most recent parliament 3 4 and ( 2 ) that N o r f o l k - and perhaps the chronicler - suspected Richard of a vindictive intention, t o catch the dukes at one time or another. The Monk of Saint-Denys is unfriendly t o Richard, too, when he gives an account of the complaint of Hereford concerning his banish30 Trai'son, pp. 157-158. Presumably the heavier penalty laid on Norfolk was due to his partial confession to some of the charges made before the High Court at Windsor. 31 Traison, pp. 157-158. 32 Ibid., p. 197. 33 [bid., p. 158 34 Trai'son says also, in another place, that Hereford did not attend the Shrewsbury Parliament; but Adam of Usk, for example, says he did. (See Traison, p. 140, and Adam of Usk, p. 170.)

106

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

ment, which, the chronicler reports Hereford as saying, he had not merited since he had wished only to repel by force the provocations of an aggressor. The king, says the monk, calmed him with sweet words and with a promise to recall him before a year was up, to preserve his inheritance for him if his father should die during his absence, and to give him letters patent proclaiming his innocence in order to insure for him a favorable reception abroad. But, says the writer, he did not keep his promise long. For Richard, hurt that the king of France and the dukes, Charles VI's uncles, were showing Hereford great courtesey in Paris, wrote them a letter saying that he had banished several criminals "for high treason" ("de lèse-majesté") and that it was not meet for these traitors to be shown such favor. This letter, the Saint-Denys chronicler continues, so contrary to the letters patent, was not the only mark of Richard's implacable hatred to Henry, for the king, upon the death of Gaunt, violating his promise, seized Gaunt's treasure and joined the Duchy of Lancaster to his crown. 35 It will be noticed that, at this point, the Saint-Denys chronicler falls in line with the suggestion of the Saint Albans writers that hatred for Hereford was a partial cause of Richard's sequestration of the Lancastrian estate. But if the Monk of Saint-Denys blackens the picture of Richard here, he hastens to give an equally denigrating account of Henry. The king's duplicity is matched by the duke's cunning. Though Henry complained to the French king and princes of Richard's cruel treatment and said he did not know what to do, yet he was already nourishing hostile projects against Richard and England. The duke of Berry, uncle of Charles VI, advised Henry to wait with resignation for better times, reminded him of his father's faithfulness to the crown, and urged that he should not stain with any dishonorable act his ancestral glory. So Henry pretended quiet and gaiety; but this, says the French chronicler, was only one of the ruses familiar to the English, a means of dissembling the design he had for vengeance. 36 Froissart attempts a full and unbiased analysis of this complicated episode in the Ricardian reign. He achieves a position that wavers 35 Saint-Denys, II, 674, 676. If Henry were really guilty of treason, as Richard wrote Charles VI he was, then his lands would, according to law, revert to the crown. But no chronicler, favorable or unfavorable to Richard, calls Henry a traitor at this time. 36 Saint-Denys, II, 676.

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

107

between the hostility of the Lancastrians and the general friendliness of the French chroniclers just described.37 While he scolds Richard roundly for listening to bad advice, at the same time he pictures the king as a victim of Norfolk's ambition and of a fate that was subtly preparing the ruin of the king through the medium of flattering tongues to which he need not have listened. Froissart's statement of the paradox of freewill and determinism is classic: Whatever misfortunes fate has decreed cannot be prevented; they must have their course; and those that befel king Richard are wonderful indeed to think on. He might indeed have avoided them, but what must be will be. 38 At Eltham Palace, continues Froissart, before the king and Council, Norfolk appealed Henry of treason, saying that he had spoken disrespectfully against Richard and twisting Henry's words to a more sinister meaning: " . . . you said he was unworthy to hold his crown: that without law or justice, or consulting his Council, he disturbed the realm; and that, without any shadow of reason, he banished those valiant men from his kingdom who ought to be its defenders, for all of which I present my glove, and shall prove, my body against yours, that you are a false and wicked traitor". 39 Henry accepted the challenge. Richard made no attempt to reconcile the dukes. The more sensible barons of the realm, says Froissart, thought the king should not have listened to such charges in the first place. The Duke of Lancaster agreed; but, because his son's honor had been questioned, he could not object to the duel. Richard hesitated as to what he should do. Finally informed by his advisers that rumor had it he had induced Norfolk to challenge Henry and that therefore the Londoners were on Hereford's side, he followed the advice of his Council and, before the day set for the duel, summoned Hereford and Norfolk and many nobles and prelates to Eltham Castle. Here, says Froissart, he banished Norfolk "for having caused trouble in this kingdom by uttering words which he could not 3") Like Froissart, two other pre-Yorkist historians, generally Ricardian, in their brief narration of this period waver in their support of the king; they are Dieulacres Chronicle, pp. 169-170, and Kirkstall Chronicle, p. 131. 38 Froissart, II, 678. 39 Ibid., p. 662.

108

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

p r o v e " and Hereford " f o r having angered us, and because he has been, in some measure, the cause o f the earl marshal's crime and punishment".40 Froissart

himself, unlike the Lancastrians, suggests no ulterior

motive that Richard may have had in the exiling, but he does record this

speech

thousand

of

the Londoners

to Henry

strong in the streets of

London

as they gathered to

lament

forty

the duke's

departure: " 'Through envy, treachery, and fear, are you driven out o f a kingdom where y o u are more worthy to reside than those which cause

it.' " 4 1 The lords present when the sentence was announced,

however, were satisfied, reports Froissart. Froissart censures Richard f o r the w a y he acted when John of Lancaster died: " T h e King o f England, as it seemed, was little affected by his uncle's death." 4 2 What Richard should have done at this point, the

chronicler

points out, was to recall Henry, keep him by

the

throne, and promise to be governed b y his counsels. If he had acted thus, he would not have been deposed; but, it is implied, his fate was urging him o n . 4 3 What Richard did d o was to seem more irritated than ever with Henry and, following bad advice, to pile up a series o f affronts to his cousin. He wrote Charles V I o f Lancaster's death " w i t h a sort o f j o y " , but did not write Henry. He seized the Lancastrian lands and rents for the duration o f the banishment and gave away pieces o f the estate. Finally, he sent Salisbury to France to accuse Henry o f treachery and thus succeeded in breaking o f f the projected marriage between Henry and Mary o f Berry, daughter o f the Duke o f Berry. 4 4

F o r Charles, thinking that Richard must have known more

than he was saying about Henry's " t r e a c h e r y " , refused to continue marriage negotiations until Henry should get possession o f the Duchy o f Lancaster, saying: " ' . . . it is the custom of France, and o f many countries on this side of the sea, that when a lord marries with the consent o f his lord p a r a m o u n t , . . . he settles a d o w e r on his w i f e ' " 4 S 40 ibid., p. 666. 41 Ibid., p. 667. 42 Ibid., p. 676. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., pp. 676-680. 4s Ibid., p. 680. Henry's attempt to marry without the consent of his sovereign may be considered some excuse for Richard's sequestration of Henry's estate, since the law provided for loss of lands in case of an unpermitted marriage. However, not even the most Ricardian chronicles make this excuse for the king.

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

109

It was from these acts, concludes Froissart, that Richard's fate finally overtook him.

THE Y O R K I S T S ' VIEW OF R I C H A R D ' S T R E A T M E N T OF H E R E F O R D A N D N O R F O L K

Apparently the Yorkist writers could find little material unfavorable to Henry in the quarrel-exile episode, for they spend little time on it. Capgrave and Hardyng give brief, conventional accounts with the former tending to follow the Lancastrian pattern. 4 6 The Croyland Chronicle shows some hostility in likening Henry's exiling to that of Archbishop Arundel. Norfolk is not mentioned at all. 47 A Short English Chronicle shows friendliness to Richard when it says that the king "of his gode grace" would not suffer the dukes to fight. 4 8 Davies' Chronicle is hostile to Richard in this episode, though not particularly favorable to Hereford. It repeats the story of the Continuation of Eulogium, then adds: Richard's treatment of Henry so stirred up the people that, when the king passed by, "unnethe he scapid with his l i f ' 4 9 The unique copy of the Brut (Lambeth MS 84) is also unfriendly to the king. It gives fear as Richard's motive in exiling Hereford. The chronicler tells how an astronomer prophesied that Richard should be destroyed by a toad and how Henry came to the king's feast dressed in a gown embroidered with toads. Seeing him, Richard remembered the prophecy; and euer aftyr he had this Henry, Erie o f Derby, yn Ielwsy & mystruste, supposyng that yt shulde be h e that shulde destroy h y m ; & fayne the king w o o l d e an had h y m d e s t r o y e d ; but at the last he exiled him for x y e r . 5 0

46 47 48 49 so

Capgrave, Chronicle of England, pp. 267-268; Hardyng, p. 348. Croyland Chronicle, pp. 352-353. A Short English Chronicle, p. 27. Davies' Chronicle, p. 13. The Brut, Part II, p. 590.

110

THE EXILING OF H E R E F O R D A N D NORFOLK T H E N O N P A R T I S A N S ' V E R S I O N OF T H E Q U A R R E L A N D ITS C O N S E Q U E N C E S

The nonpartisans add no complexity to the picture. Caxton, cutting the account to the bone, says little more than that the quarrel occurred, the parties came to the lists, and the king exiled them. The sequestration is mentioned only by implication in connection with Henry's return to England. 51 Fabyan is distinguished, as has been mentioned, by giving two different accounts of the cause of the quarrel and leaving it to the reader to decide between them. As in Caxton's history, the sequestration is brought in only by inference. 52

SUMMARY OF THE DIVERGENT A C C O U N T S OF THE EXILING OF H E R E F O R D A N D N O R F O L K

In dealing with the episode of Richard's exiling of Hereford and Norfolk and his sequestration of the estate Hereford should have inherited from his father, the chronicles, on the whole, are consentient in their uncomplimentary picture of the king. Even the usually favorable chronicles are unable to piece together a satisfying apologia for Richard's behavior. Froissart gives the fullest, most interesting, and most impartial account, though his representation of Norfolk as the informer can hardly be accepted against the testimony of other sources. In general, he censures Richard, but palliates his behavior on the plea of bad advisers and malignant fate. The sharpest contradictions which the sixteenth-century writers had to harmonize were these: (1) the quarrel stemmed from an unaccountable conversation between Hereford and Norfolk; or it arose from certain specific accusations, including misappropriation of the Calais money and the murder of Gloucester; (2) the king made no effort to stop the trial by combat; or he tried sincerely to heal the dissension between the dukes but was thwarted by their stubbornness and his uncertainty as to whether one or both had concocted a plot against him; (3) Richard exiled the two dukes out of greed, fear, and

si 52

Caxton, Higden's Polychronicon, Fabyan, pp. 544-545.

VIII, 5 3 8 .

THE EXILING OF HEREFORD AND NORFOLK

111

hatred toward Hereford or out of well-founded suspicion of their loyalty; and (4) the exiling made the king so unpopular, especially with the Londoners, that his life was in constant danger; or the lords were generally satisfied with the decision. Such was the jumbled history of Richard II which confronted Shakespeare and his contemporaries at the time he began composition of his sequence of historical plays.

V THE FALL OF RICHARD II

By the end of September, 1398, Richard had disposed of his most powerful enemies and was enjoying the full exercise of his royal prerogative. He must have felt now that he had completely vindicated his regality, both to himself and to those who might be prone to ridicule his small achievement on the field of glory. There is no doubt that Richard set the highest value on his kingship. One of the favorites of the king, Sir William Bagot, quotes him as saying that he cared to live no longer than to see his lords and commons have for him "as great awe and drede as euer they hadde [for] any of his progenytours, so that it might be cronycled of hym, that none passyd hym of honour and dygnyte". 1 Indeed, if the picture drawn by the authors of "Eulogium" and Davies' Chronicle can be taken literally, 2 Richard's belief in the power of his regality passed the bounds of normalcy. Davies' Chronicle depicts the king thus in 1398, perhaps on one of his crown-wearing days: . . . he leet ordeyne and make in his chambir, a trone, wherynne he was wont to sitte fro aftir mete vnto euensong tyme, spekynge to no man, but ouerlokyng alle menn; and yf he loked on eny mann, what astat or degre that evir he were of, he moste knele. As Steel comments in his biography of Richard II (pp. 278-279), "the regality had grown until it had swallowed the entire world and as Richard looked around him he saw nothing but the mirror of his royal personality, inhabited by flickering shades whose movements could be governed by a glance". 1

Fabyan, p. 565.

2

Eulogium,

III, 3 7 8 \ Davies' Chronicle,

p. 12.

THli I ALL OF RICHARD II

113

However Richard may have deluded himself as to his complete control over his people, the real situation was quite different, for the high-handed acts of the "second t y r a n n y " were rapidly bringing the kingdom to the verge of revolution. The causes of dissatisfaction are referred to in many chronicles; 3 and they are, of course, summarized in the articles of accusation presented to the deposition parliament. Among the major grievances recorded are blank charters, a royal device for extorting money from the wealthy. The wording of these charters, according to Davies' Chronicle (pp. 13-14), ran as follows: "Because that we befor this tyme have grevously offended your majeste, we yeve unto you us and alle our godes, at your wille." Members of the clergy, lords spiritual and temporal, and many of the commons were compelled to sign these documents. Also, loans were forced from men of property in London and elsewhere and from certain towns and religious houses. Suspected groups and individuals were required to take oaths ratifying the proceedings of the September, 1397, and January, 1398, parliaments, as well as the acts of the continuing parliamentary committee. No one dared, according to Froissart (II, 659), to speak his sentiments about anything the king chose t o do; and, according to Annates (p. 240), the poor were bribed to inform on the rich. The "crooked pardon" was used to exclude from royal amnesty any one suspected of treachery. Adam of Usk (pp. 152 and 155) explains the "crooked p a r d o n " as follows. On the first day of the parliament of September, 1397, the king declared grace to all who had molested his power except fifty persons and certain others to be currently impeached. When pressed to disclose the names of the fifty, Richard answered: "I simply will not; and whosoever asks it is worthy of death." The "crooked pardon" was later used to exclude from royal clemency seventeen shires said to have supported the appellants in 1387-88. The king forced these counties to appoint procurators to buy back his pleasure. The fine thus imposed was known as "le plesaunce".

3 See, for example, the following chronicles: Adam of Usk, pp. 155, 165, 169, 175-176, 180-181, 190, 203; Annates, pp. 202-209, 234-238, 240; the Brut, Part II, pp.353, 356; Capgrave's Chronicle of England, pp. 261, 263-264; Croyland Chronicle, p. 352; Davies' Chronicle, pp. 13-14; Eulogium, III, 372; Fabyan, pp. 543-544; Froissart, II, 659, 682-684; Great Chronicle of London, p. 49; Hardyng, pp. 346-347; Kirkstall Chronicle, p. 132; Monk of Evesham, pp. 146-148; Otterbourne, pp. 192, 194-195, 197,199-200; and Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 227, 229-231, and Ypodigma, pp. 374, 382, 550, 553.

114

THE F A L L OF RICHARD II

In addition to blank charters, forced loans, oaths, the "crooked pardon", and "le plesaunce", many other serious charges are made in the chronicles. For one thing, the courts were closed, and merchants slackened their travel for fear of being robbed when no appeal to justice was possible. Abuse of the curia militaris (which authorized trial by combat instead of trial by jury) led to the miscarriage of justice. Moreover, according to Fabyan (p. 543) the king at this time appointed sheriffs himself, instead of leaving their nomination to local option. And, even worse, Richard farmed out the kingdom to Scrope, Bushy, Green, and Bagot. The king's Cheshire archers come in for a large share of opprobrium. These guards treated the people with contempt and were guilty of theft, violence, and adultery; yet no redress was possible since the Chester men were favorites of the king. Among the less grave offenses of the king recorded in the chronicle literature is the abuse of purveyance, a provision by which horses, wagons, and supplies could be appropriated to the king's use without being paid for. Also Richard is accused of keeping more officers than he needed for efficient rule and of spending more than any of his predecessors on the upkeep of his household and on extravagant gifts to his favorites. Occasionally in the chronicles other accusations are brought against the king. For instance, Adam of Usk (p. 165) says that Richard was seeking an opportunity to slay the Earl of March, lieutenant of Ireland, whose virtue and popularity he envied. Historia Anglicana (II, 230) describes the undependability of the king, and the Monk of Evesham (pp. 169-170) says Richard was guilty of drinking most of the night through with his courtier bishops and " o f other things not to be mentioned". Froissart (II, 683) reports that the king was thought to attend only to idle pleasures and not to the affairs of the kingdom. The people, says the chronicler, noting Richard's excessive fondness for his favorites, recalled the imprisonment of Edward II when it was found he was so besotted with Lord Hugh Despencer. Indeed, the king's choice of advisers was a favorite target of his critics. Time and again Richard is reproached in the chronicles for listening to flatterers, for keeping about him young men of low birth who had little sense except in knowing how to wheedle gifts from the crown. Especially unpopular were three knights of the king — Sir John Bushy, Sir Henry Green, and Sir William Bagot; in the political verse of the day, these three are often satirized.4 4

See, for example, "On King Richard's Ministers", in Political

Poems

and

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

115

As resentment grew against the "fierce" rule of the king, to use Froissart's term, prophecies darkly hinting that Richard would be supplanted became very popular; the chronicles record many of them. For instance, Annates (pp. 231-232) mentions a prophecy made by a hermit to the following effect: if Warwick, Cobham, and others unjustly exiled were not recalled, bad news would surely come to Richard and to Archbishop Roger Walden. Froissart refers twice in his history (II, 6 7 8 and 709) to a prophecy he had heard in England while he was secretary to Queen Philippa, wife of Edward III. An ancient knight, Sir Bartholomew Burghersh, says Froissart, mentioned to some ladies of the queen a book called Brut, which was supposed to contain the prophecies o f Merlin. 5 This book, according to Sir Bartholomew, declared that neither the Prince of Wales nor the Dukes of Clarence, York, or Gloucester would be kings o f England, but rather the descendants of Lancaster. Perhaps the most colorful o f all these prophecies is recorded by Adam of Usk (pp. 200-202). At the coronation of Richard, declares Usk, there were three signs (as they were later understood to be) foreshadowing the misfortunes of the king. First, in the procession Richard lost one of his coronation shoes — a

Songs (Edward III to Richard III), ed. Thomas Wright, Rolls Series (London, 1859), I, 363-366. See also "On the Deposition of Richard II" (called by Skeat "Richard the Redeless"), Passus I, lines 400-405; Passus II, lines 304-313; Passus III, lines 34-38, in Political Poems and Songs, ed. Wright, I, 379, 388, 391. s In the twelfth century Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote or compiled two sets of prophecies. One set, included in Geoffrey's Brut, is attributed to Merlin Ambrosius, said to have lived in the time of Vortigern; the other set is attributed to Merlin Sylvestris and is included in Geoffrey's life of that worthy, who supposedly flourished in the days of King Arthur. Impostors imitated Geoffrey's prophecies, adapting them to suit themselves and attributing them variously to one of the Merlins, to Gildas, Bede, Saint Edward, Saint Bridget, Saint Thomas of Canterbury, or to an Italian sybil, Mahomet, and others. These prophecies were considered to be in a state of progressive accomplishment and were applied to sanction doubtful claims, to instigate a revolution, and so forth; they were given credence by the learned and the unlearned, especially during the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, and Edward IV. Their long-continued popularity is attested by the fact that, in 1583, the Earl of Northumberland is said to have commented that books of prophecies often had to be chained on the desk of libraries. One of the most voluminous prophecy writers in England was the priest John of Brydlington, whose work, in Latin verse, obscured rather than anticipated historical events, from about 1320 to 1400. (See Appendix IV, Archaeologia, XX, 254-255.)

116

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

sign that the commons would hate him all his life; second, one of the golden spurs came off - a sign that the soldiers would rise in rebellion; and third, at the banquet, a sudden gust of wind swept the crown from his head - a sign that the king would be supplanted by Henry. Thus the time was ripe for rebellion at the end of May, 1399, when Richard II sailed for Ireland, never again to stand on English soil as uncontested master of his kingdom. This chapter will deal with the capture of the king and his loss of the crown; and the next, with his humiliation and death. Such a chapter division obviously involves some overlapping of theme, for the seizure and the deposition of Richard are surely part of his mortification; but the term "humiliation" as used in Chapter VI will apply strictly to whatever was done — if anything — to make Richard's condition more miserable on his journey from Flint to London and during the days of his imprisonment, exclusive of the resignation day, September 30, 1399. This division also involves a deviation from chronological order, for the "humiliation" took place both between the capture and the deposition and also after the loss of the crown. The advantages of this arrangement, however, are twofold: Richard's capture can be treated along with its logical sequence, the abdication and deposition; and the humiliation and death will form a unit in narration as they do in mood. Samuel Daniel, in The Civil Wars, Book II, stanzas 21-50, records that, after Richard had returned from Ireland, he and his friends left the safe stronghold of Conway Castle because the king believed Northumberland's oath that Henry wanted only his property and parliamentary trial of the unpopular royal counselors; yet on the way to meet Henry, the king was treacherously captured by a ruse of the enemy. Both Daniel (Civil Wars, Book II, stanzas 105-107) and Shakespeare (Richard II, Act IV, scene i) portray the king as at first refusing or hesitating to resign his crown. From only a limited number of the early fifteenth-century chronicles, however, could the poet and the dramatist have taken such a version of the capture and the resignation. The Saint Albans histories picture the king as yielding himself freely to the duke and as resigning his crown willingly and cheerfully. Here, as in most other aspects of his reign, contemporary chroniclers passed on to posterity contradictory accounts of Richard's behavior. In the presentation of the conflicting chronicle accounts that were inherited by the sixteenth century, the series of events that took place

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

117

in the revolution of 1399 will be described under the following headings: (1) Richard's departure for Ireland and his reactions upon hearing the news of Henry's arrival in England; (2) Richard's movements in Wales up to the time he entered Conway Castle; (3) the proceedings at Conway and at Flint; (4) the resignation in the Tower; and (5) the deposition in parliament. Since Richard was not in parliament when he was deprived of the throne and since the legal documents by which his deposition was brought about are recorded in the Rolls of Parliament (iii, 417-422) and are readily available in a number of chronicles, 6 very little space will be given in this section to the fifth topic listed above. It is convenient to give here the gist of the actual form of abdication read to parliament and the gist of the thirty-three articles of accusation (the numbering of the items varies in the chronicles) also presented to the parliament of September 30, 1399. In the document of abdication, Richard absolves his subjects of allegiance to him and renounces his crown and all his royal dignity and majesty "without condition, freely, straightforwardly, and absolutely"; confesses himself "to have been, and to be wholly insufficient, and useless, and because of his notorious faults not unworthy to be deposed"; and declares he will never contradict his renunciation (Otterbourne, pp. 212-213). The articles of accusation (also known as the gravamina) summarize the major grievances of the people against Richard for the last dozen years. They include most of the oppressive acts of the "second tyranny" discussed above; for example, dependence upon unworthy advisers, extravagance, forced loans, denial of justice. The tenor of the articles is that Richard has broken his coronation oath and official promises that he would keep peace, maintain the laws, and do justice in mercy and truth. 7

6 See, for example, Annates, pp. 254-256, 259-278; Capgrave, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, pp. 102-107; Fabyan, pp. 546-548; Great Chronicle of London, pp. 53-68; Hall's "Chronicle" (London, 1809), pp. 9-11; Monk of Evesham, pp. 157-159 and the appendix to the Vita, pp. 185-208; Otterbourne, pp. 212-217; Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 235-237. 7 For an analysis of these articles, see Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, II, 529-531.

118

THE FALL OF RICHARD II THE LANCASTRIAN PICTURE OF RICHARD

F R O M HIS D E P A R T U R E F O R I R E L A N D IN M A Y , 1 3 9 9 , T O HIS D E P O S I T I O N IN S E P T E M B E R , 1 3 9 9 In their story o f h o w Richard fell, t h e Saint Albans chroniclers stress the

f a c t that Richard, o n his o w n

initiative, m a d e

the offer of

renunciation o f his crown at C o n w a y , w h e r e o f course he was free and h a d the sea and aid from France at his disposal. T h e official resign a t i o n in the T o w e r , " w i t h c h e e r f u l c o u n t e n a n c e " ( " v u l t u hilari"), w a s , according t o this view, s i m p l y t h e final step in a chain o f events set in action b y Richard h i m s e l f at C o n w a y . 8 T h e core Lancastrian story o f h o w Richard c a m e t o give u p his c r o w n is the same in all f o u r Saint A l b a n s chronicles — Walsingham's Historia

and Ypodigma,

Annates,

and Otterbourne's Chronica.9

These

c h r o n i c l e s say that, w h e n Richard sailed f o r Ireland ( t h e e n d o f May, 1 3 9 9 ) , carrying the treasures and royal j e w e l s , 1 0 he l e f t b e h i n d h i m a

8 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 233-234, and Ypodigma, pp. 385-386; Annates, pp. 249, 254; Otterbourne, pp. 207, 212. The Latin statement of the actual offer of resignation and the cheerful yielding of the crown, as given in Historia (pp. 233-234), for example, follows: "Tandem apud castellum de Conewey constitutus, petiit habere colloquium cum Domino Thomas Arundelle . . . et Comité Northumbriae, cum nulla spes esset ulterius fugiendi. Quibus indicavit se velle regno cedere . . . . " . . . in Turri Londoniarum, Rex Ricardus gratanter, ut apparuit, et vultu hilari, perlegit distincte formam cessationis suae, et absolvit ligeos suos a juramento fidelitatis et homagii." The voluntary renunciation at Conway and the free and cheerful nature of the abdication in the Tower have been called into question by a number of modern historians, on the grounds of intrinsic improbability. These scholars hold that the story officially given in the Rolls of Parliment, iii, 416, and in the Saint Albans chronicles is no more than a gross fabrication for purposes of state. See the comments by Webb (Créton, pp. 138-139, n. t) and by Williams (Trai'son, p. 202, n. 2); see also Wallon, Richard II; Clarke and Galbraith, "Deposition of Richard II", in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XIV, 125-181; and H.G. Wright, "The Protestation of Richard II in the Tower in September, 1399", in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXII (1939), 151-165. 9 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 231-238, and Ypodigma, pp. 383-387; Annates, pp. 238-287; Otterbourne, pp. 200-213. 10 The continuator of Eulogium (III, 380) makes an interesting statement about the treasures Richard took to Ireland. He says the king removed from the Tower not only the precious gems, of his ancestors but also the stone ampulla, fashioned in the shape of a golden eagle, and a writing saying that future kings of England should be anointed by the good oil within this ampulla, which had

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

119

people thoroughly disturbed by his tyrannical acts. While he tarried in Ireland, he heard the news of Henry's invasion and immediately ordered his ships prepared for going to Wales. Upon his arrival there, the king found that an army collected at Saint Albans by York (left in charge of the realm) had quickly dispersed because of the men's unwillingness to fight against Henry, whom they thought unjustly disinherited. York had then gone to Henry, Richard learned; Scrope, Bushy, and Green had fled to Bristol and been decapitated by Henry upon the insistence of the commons. Confronted with this situation and hearing of the large army Henry had gathered, Richard gave up the idea of fighting, record the Saint Albans chroniclers, and fled to north Wales. Thereupon, Thomas Percy, earl of Worcester, seneschal of the king, dismissed Richard's household, advising the members to save themselves. Meanwhile, after fleeing hither and thither, the king finally arrived at Conway. Seeing there was no hope of escape, he sought and obtained a conference with the Earl of Northumberland 11 and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas Arundel) at Conway. To them the king confided

been given by the Blessed Virgin to Saint Thomas of Canterbury. The "writing", continues the chronicler, prophesied that one of the future kings of England anointed with this oil should recover without force the land lost by his ancestors and should be great among kings. He should buiid many churches in the Holy Land and drive the pagans from Babylon, where he would also build churchcs. And as often as he wore the eagle over his heart, he would have victory over his enemies. The occasion for the discovery of this eagle, stored away by Saint Thomas, would be the anointment of the kings of England on the heads of pagans. This is a popular story which originated in the days of Edward II. It is referred to in a number of chronicles. See, for example, the following: Annates, pp. 297-300; Capgrave's Chronicle of England, pp. 273-274; Eulogium, III, 380; Historia Anglicana, II, 239-240 and 726-732. See also Wright, "The Protestation of Richard II in the Tower in September, 1399", in Bulletin of the John Rylands library, XXIII (1939), 160-162. Both Richard and Henry prized the sacred oil. Since it was discoverd after Richard had been crowned and anointed, he requested the archbishop to anoint him a second time, but the archbishop refused. Henry was anointed with the sacred oil upon his coronation day and wished to go to the Holy Land, according to the words of the prophecy, but never achieved his wish. ii Henry Percy, the elder, earl of Northumberland, had been summoned by Richard to accompany him to Ireland; b u t the earl had refused and was at least nominally exiled by the king to Scotland for a short time. (See Froissart, II,

682.)

120

THE F A L L OF RICHARD II

his wish to give up the responsibility of ruling, provided he be granted life, honorable support, and the safety of eight persons with him. These conditions having been granted, Richard left Conway and rode to the castle at Flint; here in a brief conference, he submitted to Henry. The official resignation came approximately six weeks later. In the Tower of London (on September 29, 1399), in the presence of certain lords and others, King Richard willingly, as it appeared, and with cheerful countenance read aloud the form of his abdication and signed it with his own hand, absolving his subjects from their allegiance. After the form of abdication, followed by articles of accustaion (the gravamina), had been read in parliament (September 30, 1399) and the sentence of deposition had been accepted by the three estates, a commission was appointed to declare these proceedings to Richard in the Tower. The next day (October 1, 1399) the commission, through Chief Justice Thirning, announced to Richard his sentence of deposition and, in the name of the three estates and the people of England, gave up allegiance to him. To this basic story of Richard's fall, common to the Saint Albans histories, each of these chronicles makes its own additions. Annates is the fullest. Since Otterboume's Chronica follows Annates rather closely, the significant material added by the two will be presented concurrently. In describing the departure of Richard for Ireland, the author of Annates, but not Otterbourne, says that the reason the king took the royal treasure along with him to Ireland was that he feared vengeance from the people and wanted to have his riches with him in case anyone should happen to come unexpectedly t o England in his absence. 12 It is said by Annates that the king was notified of Henry's approach to England by envoys from York, who urged haste and stated that York's army of twenty thousand awaited Richard near the coast of Wales. 13 No sooner had Richard made hasty preparations for departure, report both Annates and Otterboume's chronicle, than "through the will of God it happened that a different plan came to the king's mind when everything was ready for embarking; he ordered the horses and other things that had already been loaded t o be taken

12 13

An obvious implication that the king feared Henry would invade. Annates, p. 245.

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

121

off and loaded at another port". 1 4 This transfer caused a seven days' delay. Both Annates and the Otterbourne history record a talk in Ireland between Richard and young Henry (eldest son of the invading duke). The king said he was sorry for the boy because the deed of the duke would perhaps deprive young Henry of his patrimony. When the boy pled his innocence, Richard said he held him excused. 15 But young Henry, along with Humphrey, the son of the Duke of Gloucester, was imprisoned in Ireland. 16 Annales explains that these young nobles had been brought along by Richard as a protection in case their families rose against him. In connection with York's summoning of forces, Annales says that, in order to attract soldiers, York had to offer bribes. Roih Annales and Otterbourne record that, of those answering York's summons, many took the king's pay but deserted to Henry. Richard anchored on the coast of Wales at Milford, records Otterbourne. He gave up his intention of fighting because he was afraid, says the same chronicler, and because he believed the commons hated him so much that they had rather die then yield, says Annales. After Sir Thomas Percy, weeping, had broken his staff of office and dismissed the king's household, Richard sought safety at Anglesey, Conway, Beaumaris, Flint, and Holt, say both chronicles. 17 The author of Annales and Otterbourne both say that the king's half-brother, the Duke of Exeter, was sent by Richard to arrange for him a conference with the Earl of Northumberland and the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom Henry thereupon delegated to talk with the king at Conway. 18 Both historians name seven of the eight persons whose safety was specified by Richard: the Duke of Exeter

14 Annates, p. 248; Otterbourne, p. 206. is Annales, p. 247; Otterbourne, pp. 205-206. 16 Adam of Usk (p. 180) adds some interesting material about these two boys. When Henry sent for them, young Henry brought with him, in chains, Sir William Bagot (who, according to Historia, p. 233, had escaped decapitation by fleeing to Ireland). Humphrey, however, Usk reports, was said to have been poisoned in Ireland by Thomas Despencer; he died in the island of Anglesey on his way home. (Some chronicles, however, say Humphrey arrived in England and, along with the young Earl of Arundel, was given custody of Richard at Chester. For example, see Traison, p. 210; Creton, p. 173; Saint-Denys, II, 716.) 17 Annales, pp. 248-249; Otterbourne, pp. 206-207. 18 Annates, p. 249; Otterbourne, p. 207.

122

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

(John Holland, the king's half-brother); the Duke of Albemarle, or Aumerle (eldest son of the Duke of York); the Duke of Surrey (Thomas Holland, the younger, nephew of the king); the Earl of Salisbury (John Montague, the younger); the Earl of Gloucester (Thomas Despencer); the Bishop of Carlisle (Thomas Merke); and John Maudelain.19 Both chroniclers also give the date of Richard's surrender to Henry, August 20, and remark that, after the king's submission, Henry dismissed all his army except fifteen thousand knights, armsbearers, and young peers. The authors call attention to the remarkable feat Henry had accomplished in winning all England within forty-six or forty-seven days after his arrival, to the people's devotion to the duke, and to their strong desire to evict Richard. When they come to the renunciation of the crown, Annates and the Otterbourne narrative add to the basic account a number of details regarding what happened before and after Richard read his abdication aloud in the Tower of London. In the first place, both chronicles give the personnel of the committee that visited Richard in the Tower: certain lords, including the Archbishop of York, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland; the Prior of Canterbury, the Abbot of Westminster; and a number of other peers; two doctors of law, two knights, two notaries public appointed upon the advice of the justices; and others skilled in law. The committee met at Westminster and then went to the Tower at nine o'clock in the morning. Here, in the presence of all, continue both historians, the Earl of Northumberland read to Richard a document recording the following points: how the king had formerly at Conway Castle, "being at liberty", promised the Archbishop of Canterbury and Northumberland he would willingly renounce the crowns of England and France and his regal majesty; how he had confessed that he was unable and insufficient in ruling; and how he had authorized his statements to be put into better form. Richard replied that he was willing to carry out what he had promised, but wanted to speak with Henry and the archbishop first. Then he asked for a copy of the points which had just been read to him so that he could think the matter over. Later in the day, Henry came to the Tower, accompanied by several lords. After Richard had talked with the duke and the archbishop, they all showed a happy countenance to one another from 19 Maudelain was the chaplain of the king. His name is variously spelled in the chronicles Magdalen, Maudeleyn, Maigdelene, and Maudelain.

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

123

that time on, as it seemed to those present; and Richard announced publicly that he would give up his kingdom and his crown. 2 0 Annates adds that, as quickly as possible after the king had said this, his statement was reduced to a parchment document by a person appointed to be regent for Richard. Both chroniclers stress the distinctness with which Richard now read his abdication aloud; and then, says Annates, he swore he meant it. Annates also states that Richard took off his gold signet ring and put it on Henry's finger, in token of good faith. In connection with the announcement to Richard that parliament had accepted his abdication, Annates supplements the usual story. After Richard had said he expected no further allegiance, Thirning told him he had also renounced all honors and dignity pertaining to a king. To this Richard objected, saying that he was unwilling "to renounce the spiritual honor of the letter impressed upon him or the oil of the anointment, nor could he give them up". 2 1 When Thirning reminded him that he had confessed himself unable to govern, Richard answered that this was not so, but he had given up the rule because his government was not pleasing to the people. Thirning insisting that his inability had been plainly stated in his abdication, Richard showed a cheerful face and asked that the lords present look out for his interests, lest he be deprived of honorable support. 2 2 One more point Annates adds. In Henry's first parliament (October, 1399), the Commons petitioned the new king to bring Richard before them for answering the charges made against him. Henry put them off, saying he would give no reply until all the prelates were present. 23 Historia Angticana and Ypodigma Neustriae add a few points to the basic Saint Albans story. In describing Richard's journey to Ireland, Historia says that the king, without regard for the hatred of his people toward him, decided to sail to Ireland in order to avenge the death of the Earl of March 2 4 and to subdue the natives. Ypodigma joins Historia in recording that Richard took along with him a number of bishops and other clergy so that they would be on 20

Annates,

21 22 23

Annates, p. 286. Ibid., pp. 286-287. Ibid., p. 311.

24

pp. 252-254; Otterboume, p. 212.

Roger Mortimer, fourth earl of March, heir presumptive to the English throne, was slain by the wild Irish in 1398, while acting in the capacity of king's lieutenant in Ireland.

124

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

hand in case the king, when he reached Ireland, wanted to call together his parliamentary committee of eight for enacting statutes. 2 5 The situation Richard found upon returning to England, the decision not to fight, the renunciation, and the resignation are all recounted in these two chronicles without enlargement, except that Historia states that Bagot had escaped Henry's sentence of decapitation by fleeing to Chester and thence to Ireland. Most of the other Lancastrian chroniclers seem less certain than the Saint Albans historians about the voluntary promise of resignation at Conway and the cheerful reading of the abdication in the Tower. Capgrave, in his Liber de Illustribus Henricis, does mention the promise at Conway, but only in retrospect, that is, in connection with his description of the scene in the Tower. Certain accusations made against King Richard caused him to be so pusillanimous, says Capgrave, that he publicly, in the face of many, resigned his crown and royal power "freely, peacefully, and of his own will". 26 (It will be noted that the chronicler does not use the Saint Albans term "with happy countenance".) The king thus renounced the "governance" ("regimen") of the kingdom, Capgrave continues, and desired Henry to succeed him, for Richard "had promised at Conway that he would fulfill all this; and, as he had promised, he fulfilled [it] at London, placed in the Tower". 27 Adam of Usk records Richard's interview with the archbishop and Northumberland at Conway; but he does not say that the king had sent for them. On the contrary, his account seems to imply that Henry, not Richard, took the initiative and that he demanded the crown and treasure from Richard at once. On the eve of the Assumption of Mary (August 14), records Usk, the two ambassadors went to Richard at Conway Castle to treat with him on Henry's behalf: and the king, on condition of saving his dignity, promised to surrender to the duke at the Castle of Flint. And so, delivering up to them his 25 Walsingham, Ypodigma, p. 383, and Historia Anglicana, II, 231-232. Historia here refers to its own earlier statement (pp. 226-227) that, at the end of the Shrewsbury Parliament, a committee of "seven or eight" persons had been appointed to take care of unfinished business after the dissolution of parliament; later Richard had extended the authority of this committee. For the setting up of this commission, see above, p. 102, n. 19. 26 Capgrave, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, p. 103. 27 Ibid., p. 107.

THE FALL O F RICHARD II t w o crowns, valued at o n e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d marks, w i t h c o u n t l e s s treasure, h e straightway set f o r t h t o F l i n t . 2 8

125 othei

W h e n Richard was s a f e l y in the T o w e r , H e n r y , according t o U s k , a p p o i n t e d a c o m m i s s i o n o f d o c t o r s o f law, b i s h o p s , and others t o decide h o w and f o r w h a t reasons t o d e p o s e t h e king. T h e report o f this c o m m i s s i o n , o f w h i c h Usk says h e was a m e m b e r , f o l l o w s : . . . that perjuries, sacrileges, unnatural crimes, e x a c t i o n s f r o m his subjects, r e d u c t i o n of his p e o p l e t o slavery, c o w a r d i c e and w e a k n e s s of rule - w i t h all o f w h i c h crimes king Richard was k n o w n t o be tainted - were reasons e n o u g h for setting h i m aside . . . ; and, a l t h o u g h he w a s ready himself t o yield u p t h e c r o w n , y e t for b e t t e r security was it d e t e r m i n e d , for the aforesaid reasons, that h e s h o u l d be d e p o s e d b y the a u t h o r i t y o f the clergy and p e o p l e ; for w h i c h purpose t h e y were s u m m o n e d . 2 9 Usk's p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e o f f i c i a l renunciation in the T o w e r has n o suggestion o f c h e e r f u l n e s s o n Richard's part. 28 Adam of Usk, p. 178. Maunde Thompson, editor of Adam of Usk's chronicle, points out that, since the story of the surrender of treasure at Conway is not supported by other chronicles, perhaps the capture of the treasure at Holt Castle is being referred to. (See Adam of Usk, p. 178, n. 4.) 29 Adam of Usk, pp. 181-182. Usk (pp. 182-184) also records that, during a meeting of this commission, some of the lawyers raised the point that Richard did not have a rightful claim to the throne by succession in direct line from the eldest son of Henry III. This eldest son, they declared, was Edmund, who, on account of mental weakness, had been set aside in favor of his younger brother, Edward, the direct ancestor of Richard. But Usk says their claim was unfounded and quotes several chronicles to show that Edward was indeed the eldest son of Henry III. Hardying throws light on this passage from Usk. The prose additions occurring in the Harleian and Selden MSS of his revised history give the following information about what is now known as the "Crouchback legend". Hardyng had heard his patron, the earl of Northumberland, say that Henry, after he had imprisoned Richard, produced a forged chronicle claiming that Edmund (Henry's ancestor in a direct line) was the elder son and heir of Henry III, but, being "croukebacked", had yielded the crown to his younger brother, Edward (Richard's ancestor in a direct line). Upon examination of the chronicles of all notable monasteries, however, the Council at Westminster determined that Edward was truly the elder and that Edmund, the younger, was not crouchbacked. Thereupon, Henry's chronicle was annulled. This annulled chronicle, continues Hardyng, had been forged by John of Gaunt and planted in many monasteries to ensure Henry's succession to the throne, after Gaunt's petition to be made heir apparent to Richard had failed in parliament. (See Hardyng, pp. 353-354, note.)

126

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

In commenting on Henry's triumph over Richard, Adam descants upon the king's failings. It was the nature of Richard, he says, to abase the noble and exalt the base, like Bagot and others; he made bishops of unlettered men, who afterwards "fell ruined by their irregular leap into power". 3 0 He took wealth from every man. Indeed evil report had it that he came not from a royal father, but from a mother "given to slippery ways of life". 31 The Monk of Evesham, though generally hostile to Richard like the other Lancastrian chroniclers, nevertheless gives a quite independent account of the proceedings that took place in north Wales between Richard and the ambassadors from Henry. The place of the conference, he says, was at Flint Castle (not Conway, as in the Saint Albans histories). The king, fearful because he heard that the entire kingdom followed the duke, sent Exeter to Chester to confer with Henry. The message that Henry sent back by Exeter is not recorded in the Monk of Evesham's chronicle; but, since a few days later, according to this chronicler, Henry claimed to Richard that he had come only for his inheritance, this is presumably the message the envoys brought to Flint. Certainly there is no hint in the Evesham chronicle that Richard promised to resign the crown. It is simply said that, when the envoys sent back by Henry had given the duke's reply to the king, after many arrangements they led Richard to Conway Castle, where he awaited the arrival of the duke. 32 Three days later the duke came to Conway with a large army, which he showed off in the sight of the king. The picture of their conference, as given by Evesham, is full of amiability and without any suggestion that Richard should yield his crown. 3 3 As Henry approachso Adam of Usk, p. 180. The "unlettered bishops" is a reference to Roger Walden, appointed by Richard archbishop of Canterbury in place of the exiled Thomas Arundel; Thomas Merke, bishop of Carlisle; Tydeman of Winchcombe, bishop of Worcester; and others. 31 Ibid., pp. 180-181. Froissart also mentions this report of Richard's birth. (See below, p. 166.) 32 Monk of Evesham, p. 155. 33 Ibid. It seems highly improbable that this meeting took place at Conway. Why would Henry arrange for Richard to be taken from Flint back to the coast at Conway, where escape to France was relatively easy? Perhaps the Monk o f Evesham doubted whether the king submitted at Conway without compulsion, as the Saint Albans writers said, and therefore reconstructed the story in what seemed to him a more likely fashion, indicating that Richard was intimidated at Conway by Henry's large army.

127

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

ed, he honored the king three times, bending low; Richard took him by the hand and raised him, extending a courteous welcome. The duke said: "Reverend lord, my king, the reason for my coming at this time, saving your honor, is to possess myself, my lands, and my inheritance again, with your royal license." The king replied: "For this indeed I am prepared, my dear cousin, and you may have all your possessions in peace without any contradiction." 34 But, on this same day, says the Monk of Evesham, the king and the duke with his army rode hastily to Chester. There is no description of a resignation scene in the Tower. But it is recorded in the account of the parliament of September 30 that the resignation which had been made willingly by Richard was presented to parliament through procurators. The Monk of Evesham gives the usual Lancastrian account of the proceedings in parliament, with the addition of the phrase "the king being absent". 35 The continuator of Eulogium gives a still different account of some of the events in this episode. He combines the promise of renunciation and the surrender to Henry into one event and places it at Conway. To the castle at Conway came Henry himself and the Archbishop of Canterbury, threatening Richard that his rule would not last much longer, reports Eulogium. At once the archbishop began a series of invectives against the king, beginning thus: "You are a handsome man, but the falsest of all men; me, swearing on the body of Christ, that you would brother [Richard Arundel, condemned to death by 1398]. And when I had led him to you, I did not more." 3 6

you promised not harm my parliament in see him any

There is much more of this talk. The archbishop reprimanded the king for not recalling him from exile, for naming another archbishop in his

34 35 pp. 36

Monk of Evesham, p. 155. Ibid., pp. 157-159; also see Monk of Evesham, appendix to the 183-208. Eulogium, III, 382.

Vita,

128

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

stead, for oppressing the kingdom with high taxes, for following the advice of low flatterers, and so on. Henry stopped this rush of talk with the command that the archbishop be quiet. Then Richard, unable to defend himself, surrendered to the duke and promised to renounce his crown, whereupon he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. 3 7 The description of the resignation in the Tower given by the continuator of Eulogium seems to be unique in the chronicles (except for the Davies' Chronicle, which shares a common source with Eulogium). On the Vigil of Saint Michael a group of bishops, earls, barons, knights, and notaries was sent to the Tower to ask the king if he were willing to give up the crown as he had promised to do. The chronicler records as follows Richard's reactions and what happened next: . . . at first he said no, but afterwards they made it plain to him that he had to renounce and this absolutely and without condition; and they handed over to him a document, which he read, with the duke present and a great throng of lords and magnates: "I, Richard, King of England, renounce all right that I hold in the crown of England with its appurtenances . . . for me and my heirs forever." 38 As the king spoke, witnesses were required to take down notes for a public document. The Eulogium account of the parliament of September 30 makes one notable addition to the usual story, that the Bishop of Carlisle was present. When Henry entered Westminster Hall on September 30, says the chronicle, "he placed himself in the seat of his father, that is, next to the Bishop of Carlisle". 39 This testimony to the presence of Carlisle takes on some importance because it corroborates the statement of Traison that Carlisle attended this parliament. Trai'son, as shown below (p. 143), not only says Carlisle was present but also gives the unique account of the bishop's vigorous protest against parliamentary condemnation of the king without hearing. Eulogium also mentions the king's will, which he calls "strongly prejudicial to his Kingdom, as they said who saw it". 4 0 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., pp. 382-383. 39 Ibid. p. 383. 40 Eulogium, III, 380-381. The portion of the will referred to as being "strongly prejudicial to his Kingdom" states that Richard wished (after the payment of his debts and of certain beuuests to the monasteries at Westminster

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

129

In a review of what is said by the four chroniclers just discussed — Capgrave, Adam of Usk, the Monk of Evesham, and the continuator of Eulogium — it will be seen that these Lancastrians, the most important anti-Ricardian historians for this episode other than the Walsingham group, do not fully support the Saint Albans story of voluntary promise and cheerful resignation. Indeed, there is a tendency to discount the voluntary nature of Richard's promise to give up the crown. Capgrave does not suggest any initiative on the king's part; Usk implies compulsion; Evesham records no such promise at all; and the continuator of Eulogium expressly states that Richard was unable to do otherwise. Moreover, there is an almost equally strong tendency to minimize the cheerfulness of the formal renunciation in the Tower. Capgrave uses the terms "freely" and "peacefully" instead of "with cheerful countenance"; Usk gives no suggestion of Richard's mood; Evesham says, in retrospect, that the resignation was made "willingly"; and the Eulogium continuator emphasizes the king's reluctance. The less important Lancastrian chronicles41 have little to add to the conventional anti-Ricardian story of the king's downfall. But perhaps one statement made by Gower is worthy of attention. This poetical historian records that the king, fearing to stand before the

and Bermondsey) to leave the rest of his gold to his successor provided this successor confirm all the statutes and ordinances of the following parliaments the one begun at Westminster on September 17, in the twenty-first year of his reign, and continued at Shrewsbury; the one held at Coventry on September 16, in the twenty-second year of his reign, as well as the proceedings of any other parliaments that might be held during his reign. If, however, his successor would not confirm the statutes and ordinances of these parliaments, then Richard would leave the residue of his gold to Surrey, Albemarle, Exeter, and Wiltshire for them to support, even to the death, the aforesaid statutes. (See Monk of Evesham, appendix to the Vita, pp. 200-201, including notes.) 41 The less important Lancatrian chronicles for this period are: the Great Chronicle of London, pp. 51-68, which gives the series of documents by which Richard was deposed, including the resignation, the gravamina, the appointment of the parliamentary commission to make formal announcement of the deposition, the form and words of the deposition, and the appointment of procurators to resign homage to the king; the Coninuation of Polychronicon, VIII, 506-509; the Brut (Cambridge MS K k I 1 2 ) , in the Brut, Part II pp. 358-359; the Brut (Haileian MS 53), in the Brut, Part II, pp. 544-545; Gower, Cronica Tripertita, Tercia Pars, lines 160-243, 283-297, in The Complete Works, ed. Macaulay, IV, 334-337.

130

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

people, begged that he not be required to appear in parliament to read his resignation. 42

THE PRE-YORKIST

SYMPATHIZERS'

P O R T R A Y A L O F R I C H A R D ' S C O N D U C T F R O M T H E NEWS O F H E N R Y ' S A R R I V A L IN E N G L A N D T O T H E DEPOSITION OF THE KING

The chief concern of the French and pre-Yorkist English sympathizers is apparently to show that Richard, far from voluntarily offering at Conway to resign his crown, was there tricked by false promises into leaving the security of his position and was shortly afterwards made captive. When it is mentioned at all, little space is given to the resignation in the Tower, presumably because the chroniclers felt that, after his capture, the king's actions were no longer self-directed and could be of little import. The fullest and most important Ricardian chronicles for this episode are Créton's Histoire, Traison, the Chronique of Saint-Denys, and the Dieulacres Chronicle.43 It cannot be said that these four generally agree on a basic story, as the Saint Albans histories do; indeed, there is not even nearly precise agreement on any phase of the fall, except on the fact that the king was fraudulently enticed away from Conway. However, in a point-by-point comparison of these chronicles with the Saint Albans histories, it will be found that in almost every instance at least one of the four accounts gives a very different picture from that of the Lancastrian chronicles. Unlike the anti-Richard record, these histories say nothing about the king's leaving a disturbed people behind him when he embarked for Ireland. But they spend some time in describing Richard's reactions upon hearing of the duke's invasion. In direct opposition to the Annales story that, in the midst of preparations for departure, the king unaccountably changed his mind and delayed in Ireland for seven 42

Gower, Cronica Tripertita, Tercia Pars, lines 283-297, IV, 337. Jean Créton, Histoire du roy d'Angleterre Richart III 1, traitant particulièrement la rebellion de ses subiectz . . . [I399\ ed. and trans. Rev. John Webb, in Archaeologia, XX (1824), 1-423; Traison, pp. 183-224; Saint-Denys, II, 702-726; and Dieulacres, pp. 171-173. This last chronicle, though brief and without many significant variations from the French histories, is important as an original, contemporary account of this period, written on English soil. 43

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

131

days, Creton shows that the shift in plan was due to treachery. After the king and his advisers had agreed to put to sea within a day and a half, the Duke of Albemarle, says Creton, who had "slily resolved upon a trick", persuaded Richard to wait for his whole navy before embarking and meanwhile to send the Duke (sic) of Salisbury to raise an army in Wales. Following this advice, the king tarried eighteen days in Ireland. "Accursed be the man by whom this happened", says Creton, 44 Against the Saint Albans description of how York had to collect an army largely by bribery and how there was wholesale desertion deriving from a feeling that the duke's cause was just, the author of Trai'son sets up a picture of ready response to York's call for men, of vigorous action in Richard's cause, and of loyal service until York himself decided to capitulate. Upon the first issuance of a proclamation for men, says Trai'son, York and Scrope gathered together three thousand horsemen. With these, accompanied by the Marquis of Dorset (John Beaufort, half-brother of Henry), they went to the west coast, intending to prevent the duke's landing, only to find that Henry was on the north coast. Returning to London, they then sent out a second call for men. This time sixty thousand archers and many thousand lances responded. The army marched to Bristol, hoping to take the city and the castle before the duke arrived. But the governor of the castle would not yield it to Scrope. Accordingly, Scrope, Bagot, Green, and Bushy took possession of the city and the council chamber; and York and Dorset stayed in the field with the army, according to Trai'son.45 But York became afraid to meet the rapidly growing enemy, says the author of Saint-Denys. The growth of Henry's forces was due in large measure, continues the chronicler, to his circulation of traitorous letters, defamatory to the king. 46 So York sent a message to Henry 44 Creton, pp. 55-59, 75. Earlier in his metrical history, Creton points out that, upon the king's arrival in Ireland, Richard had to wait fourteen days at Kilkenny for succor from Albemarle, "who behaved in an evil and strange manner throughout the whole of his course". In connection with the hold that Albemarle seemed to have upon the king, Creton says: "Anything that he lAlbemarle] pleased he might have asked of the king, for I solemnly declare, there was no man alive . . . whom he [the king] loved better." (See Creton, pp. 2 3 , 4 5 . ) 4s Traison, pp. 183-186. 46 Saint-Denys, II, 708. The Monk of Saint-Denys and the author of Traison (pp. 180-183) give the contents of these "traitorous letters" and their effects

132

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

asking whether or not the duke came with hostile intentions. Bolingbroke answered that he did not come to the prejudice of the kingdom or of the king, "whom he intended to obey faithfully". 4 7 Thereupon York decided to yield, the author of Traison records, and told Henry he would assist him in getting his inheritance, adding that the banishment of the duke had not been upon his advice. 48 In recording what happened to Richard and his army upon their arrival in Wales, the major pre-Yorkist sympathetic English and French chronicles, in their description of many events, give a very different account from that of the Saint Albans writers. Neither fear nor necessity, these Ricardian historians imply, but Richard's own military strategy or the advice of his counselors to seek a fortified castle with its back to the sea caused the king to turn northward. Upon arriving at Milford, says Creton, Richard resolved to set out at midnight, with thirteen men, in order to contact Salisbury at Conway. Fearing to be recognized, he dressed like a Minorite priest. In listing nine of the thirteen men accompanying the king, Creton gives a brief characterization of most of them: the Duke of Exeter; the Duke of Surrey, loyal; the Earl of Gloucester, brave; the Bishop of Saint David's (Guy Mone), unworthy; the Bishop of Carlisle, truest of all; the Bishop of Lincoln (Henry's half-brother); Sir Stephen Scrope and Sir William Ferriby, both valiant; and Jenico, a good soldier. 49 The upon the people. To the commons, they say, Henry wrote that, by the aid of France, Germany, and Brittany, Richard would domineer over England more than ever before and would put to death the leading citizens who had opposed him on behalf of the commons; that he would keep the villeins in greater subjection than ever; and that he would invite the chief burgesses and merchants of each town to open court, at which, with the aid of his foreign allies, he would impose upon them subsidies, tallages, and imposts as he pleased. When the commons read these letters, they "all cried out unanimously. 'Cursed be Richard King of England, let him be deposed and imprisoned! and long live the good Duke Henry of Lancaster, let us have him for our lord and governor! ' " To the nobles, Henry wrote that Richard planned to deliver to the French all the English possessions in Guienne, in Gascony, and elsewhere for a sum to be paid in ten installments, just as he had returned Brest and Cherbourg. When the nobles read these letters, they left Richard and went to Henry in such large numbers that, within a week, the duke had so many people he was obliged to dismiss the greater part of them. 47 Saint-Denys, II, 710. The author later comments (11,712) that Henry forgot his promise of fidelity and listened to his own ambition. 48 Traison, p. 186. 49 Creton, pp. 75-91.

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

133

king and his party seem t o have gone directly to Conway; in this account there is no wandering from castle to castle, as is recorded in Annates. But it is true that Creton later describes how Richard wandered from place to place while he was waiting for his messengers to negotiate peace with the duke. 5 0 At Conway, Salisbury, who had raised forty thousand men in Wales and Chester to oppose the sixty thousand supposedly with the duke, had held his army together as long as possible, waiting for the king, who had promised to come within six days; but on the fourteenth day, when Richard had not appeared, all the army except about a hundred of Salisbury's own men left, some going to Henry and some going home. Here Creton, apparently to exonerate his hero from any suspicion of cowardice or betrayal, inserts an encomium on th Earl of Salisbury, calling him courageous, loyal, gentle, courteous, a lover of the French and mentioning that he was finally put to death like a martyr, "maintaining reason and the rightful cause". 5 1 So, when the king's party reached Conway, continues Creton, he found only Salisbury and his retainers. The king was at first piteously grieved, later extremely wrathful (Creton often describes him as pale with anger). Then Richard called upon God to save him from losing his country and his life "through these perfidious traitors" who would "deprive me of mine inheritance". 5 2 The king had desired to observe justice and righteousness, he told the Almighty, and had actually followed a righteous course, as far as he was able, "for these three years past, yea, for eight or ten years". 5 3 After the king had left for Conway, say Creton and Trai'son, Thomas Percy, the senschal, and the Duke of Albemarle, the constable of England, dismissed the royal army, stating that Richard had fled without leaving any orders and that every man should therefore look out for himself. The chroniclers condemn both Percy and Albemarle as deserters and traitors. 5 4 so See below, p. 135. 51 Creton, pp. 64-75. Creton, a squire, had gone to Ireland in the company of Salisbury "for the sake of merriment and song" and had written this history of Richard at the request of Salisbury. (See Appendix A, p. 232.) Salisbury was killed at Cirencester, during the January, 1400, uprising against Henry. (See, for example, Historia Anglicana, II, 244.) 52 Creton, p. 97. 53 Ibid., p. 98. 54 Creton, pp. 98-105; Traison, pp. 192-195.

134

THE F A L L OF RICHARD II

At this juncture, according to both Traison and Saint-Denys, the king asked his counselors what he should do. Salisbury's advice was to go to Bordeaux and seek the aid of Charles VI. Richard, however, rejected this and accepted the counsel of Exeter, that he should not flee, but hold the impregnable fortress of Conway, whence, if necessary, he could still put to sea.5S Créton gives the fullest account for the sympathetic chroniclers of the proceedings at Conway, on the road to Flint, and at Flint. In a number of ways, his story disagrees flatly with that of the Saint Albans chroniclers. Whereas they say Exeter alone went to treat for peace, Créton says Exeter and Surrey went together. On the other hand, whereas the Saint Albans group states that Northumberland and the archbishop were Henry's ambassadors, the French chronicler names Northumberland alone as the legate. 56 The anti-Ricardians say that Richard, taking the initiative, voluntarily offered to resign the crown and went to Flint willingly because he wished to yield to the duke. The sympathetic French writer says that Northumberland, taking the initiative, demanded, upon the part of Henry, parliamentary trial of Richard's friends and restoration of the duke's inheritance (there is absolutely no suggestion that the king give up his crown) and implies that Richard went to Flint willingly because he trusted Northumberland's oath that Henry meant exactly what he said. The whole story, as told by Créton, unfolds itself as follows. When Richard at Conway found that Salisbury's army had disappeared, he was advised by Exeter to ask Henry what he meant to do and why he desired to take the kingdom and the body and goods of the king, or whether he wanted to be king of England, prince of Wales, and lord of Chester. Accordingly, Richard sent Exeter and Surrey to Chester to remind the duke that he had been banished by the consent of his own father; that it was disgraceful for him to undo his rightful king and

55 Traison, pp. 190-192; Saint-Denys, II, 7 1 2 , 714. Traison says that, at the time this advice was given, Richard was at Pembroke (located on the southeastern shore of the landlocked body of water known as Milford Haven). From there the king and his party went by Beaumaris t o Conway. 56 Créton, pp. 119, 125-129. The Rolls of Parliament and the Saint Albans historians state that both Northumberland and Archbishop Arundel were sent to Conway. As Williams says (Traison, p. 202, n. 2), if Créton is right and Northumberland was the only ambassador, then the official account o f the capture o f the king is open to suspicion of fabrication. (See also Wallon, Richard II, II, 2 9 2 . )

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

135

that such conduct would displease all kings, nobility, and knighthood; that he should imitate the loyal behavior of his father and bear in mind that God hates falsehood. Moreover, the ambassadors were to promise that the duke should have his land again if he would come and sue for peace. 57 During the absence of his messengers, the king, says Creton, was, "from sport of fortune, together with treason . . . , all alone at Conway, full of sorrow, mourning, and dismay". 5 8 The chronicler must not intend "all alone" to be taken literally, for he mentions that sixteen persons were now with the king and names specifically "courteous" Salisbury, "great and upright" Carlisle, Ferriby, and Stephen Scrope. It was at this time that Richard heard of the desertion of his constable and his steward, records Creton; and " o n all sides, one after another, came pouring in upon him mischief and trouble". S 9 The king alternated between self-pity and thoughts of God's vengeance upon those who had failed their sovereign. Then the king and his party left Conway, "for they were greatly afraid, and with good reason". They went ten miles to Beaumaris Castle and afterwards, for greater security, to the well-fortified castle at Carnarvon; but here they found no furniture and food and the king had to sleep on straw. Richard grew pale and lamented his fall from a great height. He bewailed his separation from his wife and hoped his father-in-law would grieve for him. He prayed for succor in his undeserved fate and felt that only God could help him. Again, at times, he was resigned to his fate. Creton says he himself wept for pity of the king and his disgrace. 60 When Richard's ambassadors arrived at Chester, continues Creton, Henry made Surrey a prisoner in Chester Castle, "supposedly" for some offense against the duke. Exeter he kept waiting for a month. Meanwhile, the duke summoned his counselors and asked for advice on what reply to send Richard. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that, since the king was protected in Wales with mountains on one side, through which Henry's army could not pass, and the sea on the other side and "since he hath the power, in spite of us, at any time to put to sea, and be gone", it was best to make a covenant of peace with

57

Creton, pp. 106-109.

ss 59

Ibid. p. 113. Ibid., pp. 110, 113.

60

Ibid., pp. 114-119.

136

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

him on condition that he would swear to call a parliament for punishing the wicked men by whom his uncles (sic) were put to death. "You can not take him by any other means", concluded the archbishop. 61 Following this advice, the duke next morning sent to Conway the aged Northumberland, with four hundred lances and one thousand archers, to bring back the king "by truce or by force". Feeling sure the king would not leave the castle at Conway if he suspected force, Northumberland left his men drawn up in two bodies under the cliffs of a rock not far from Conway. Of these men, Creton pauses in the narrative to say: they were fresh and eager, persecuting traitors as they were, to take the king . . . . When for the space of two and twenty years they had upheld him in great joy and honour, to ruin him afterwards is in my mind so great an error that they ought to be forever looked upon as the wickedest of mortals and recorded in chronicles, that their deeds and their reproof might be seen at distant times. 62 Then, continues Creton, Northumberland, with five men, went to Conway Castle, determined to " 'tell the king such tidings, that unless he be harder than file of tempered steel, I think I shall make him leave his quarters' ", 6 3 Having sent a herald to say the earl brought word of Henry's wish to come to an agreement with Richard, Northumberland was granted safe conduct and entered Conway Castle alone, saying he had come from Chester with five retainers. Finding Richard with the Earl of Salisbury and the Bishop of Carlisle, continues Creton, Northumberland presented the following demands from Henry: (1) that the king should call a parliament at Westminster to try for treason the persons who had counseled the death of Gloucester, that is, Exeter, Surrey, Salisbury, Carlisle, and Maudelain, who should "await the judgment of your Parliament, wherein you shall be highly crowned a sovereign king"; 64 (2) that Richard should restore to the duke his lands and the office of chief judge of England, which Henry's father and ancestors had held for Ibid., p. 125. 62 Ibid., p. 131. 63 Ibid. 64 According to Traison (p. 198), Henry requested the appointing of five umpires to settle the differences between the king and the duke, instead of calling a parliament. These "umpires" were to be Exeter, Carlisle, Salisbury, Maudelain, and the Earl of Wesrmoreland (Ralph Neville).

THE F A L L OF RICHARD II

137

more than a hundred years. The earl insisted that Henry wanted nothing that belonged to the king, for, Northumberland said to Richard, "you are his [Henry's] immediate, rightful king; and he regretteth in his conscience the great mischief and wrong that he hath done unto you, through the evil persuasion of the enemy, who never slumbereth nor sleepeth, but is ever watchful to tempt mankind. It is he who hath whispered to him all that he hath done. "Wherefore . . . may it please you, be gentle unto my lord, who is sorrowful and afflicted, and for once lay aside your wrath; and he will most humbly come on his knees before you, and sue for mercy. This done, together shall ye go to London, like devout and peaceful men; or if you choose to go a different road you shall take it; and then shall the parliament be proclaimed throughout the land." 6 s After a discussion with his followers, Richard said to them: "Fair sirs, we will grant it to him, for I see no other way. You perceive as well as myself, that all is lost. But I swear to you, that whatsoever assurance I may give him, he shall for this be surely put to a bitter death for the outrage and injury that he hath done unto us. And doubt it not, no parliament shall be held at Westminster upon this business; for I love you so entirely, that I would not suffer you to come to parliament to die, for the fulfilment of his pleasure." 66 Then the king proposed to his friends the following plan: he would go to London by way of Wales, saying Henry had left no victuals the other way. En route, he would secretly collect an army to be ready on a certain day. When he was seen in arms, half of Henry's men would desert and come to their rightful king, he believed, for "nature will bring to their remembrance, that during my life, they ought to hold me as their rightful lord". God too would aid them. And, if the enemy could be discomfited, they should be put to death. "There are some of them", Richard added, "whom I will flay alive." 67 At the suggestion of the king's friends the earl was asked to take an oath that all he had said was true and that Henry had no hidden design whatever. Upon the consecrated host, Northumberland swore that there was no deceit in the affair. Creton comments on the duplicity of both Richard and Northumberland in the following 65

66 67

Creton, pp. 135-137.

/bid., p. 137. Ibid., pp. 138-140.

138

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

words: " . . . the one [Richard] had bad intentions, and the other still worse; but as for the King, his offence was not so great; for it is often said, 'necessity hath no law'; neither did he make oath or agreement, like the earl". 68 After the oath had been administered, Richard, ready to leave for Chester, sent Northumberland ahead to Rhuddlan Castle, to see that dinner was prepared there for the royal party. Instead, the earl went straight to the foot of the great rock on the road to Rhuddlan, where he had left his men guarding the pass and ready to take the king. When Richard and about twenty-two followers came along the steep road and saw the banners of Henry floating below, they recognized that Northumberland had broken his oath and was ambushing them. The king cried out: " 'I am betrayed! what can this be? Lord of heaven help me!' " 69 On account of the cliff no one could flee. The earl appeared armed in mail. Then the king bewailed his misfortunes so sorrowfully, says Creton, that it was pitiful to behold. Coming forward, Northumberland knelt to the ground and begged Richard not to be displeased at the men he had brought for the king's protection. Richard replied that the earl could very well have done with fewer men and reminded him of his former statement that he had come from Chester with only five retainers. Then after challenging the earl's loyalty, Richard said: " . . . I shall return to Conway that I left this day". But Northumberland answered: " . . . since I have you here, I will bring you to Duke Henry as directly as I may; for you must know that I made him such a promise these ten days past". 70 So the earl took the king and his party on to Rhuddlan, where, according to Creton, they dined sumptuously. After dinner the party rode to Flint Castle, formerly yielded without resistance to the duke's men. Here Richard and his friends spent a sleepless night, the king regretting his trust in Northumberland and invoking a curse upon the pitiless enemies who had brought him 68 ibid., pp. 142-143. 69 Ibid., pp. 145-146. 70 Ibid., pp. 146-148. Traison, in a different version from the one used in this book, states that, at this point, Northumberland "placed his hands on the bridle of the King's horse" to prevent Richard's escape. (See, in Traison, p. 201, n. 1, a reference to the Ambassades MS of Traison.)

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

139

to such undeserved ruin. He called alternately upon his wife and father-in-law, saying he would never see them again and expressing the belief that he had been seized because of his love for Isabella. He lamented the fact that it was too late for Charles to send him present aid and hoped that some day France would avenge him. Creton seems to excuse the behavior of Richard by his comment that the king had reason enough for his lamentations. 71 The next morning — Tuesday, August 22, says Creton — Richard arose early, attended by sorrow and weeping, and heard mass "like a true Catholic" with Salisbury, Carlisle, Scrope, and Ferreby. Also with them were the son of the Countess of Salisbury by a former marriage; the son of Bolingbroke, young Henry; and Jenico, a Gascon squire, who would never put off the device of Richard and was the last to wear the insignia of the white hart in England, the chronicler says. 72 After mass, Richard went up upon the walls of Flint Castle and watched Henry, with his army of a hundred thousand, come marching between the seashore and the mountains while instruments played. The king, "weeping most tenderly, and greatly lamenting upon the said walls of the castle", spoke reproachfully to Northumberland. According to Creton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Thomas Percy, the Earl of Rutland (the former duke of Albemarle, now demoted by Henry), 73 and others rode first to Flint Castle and made obeisance to the king. Drawing Richard aside, the archbishop told him no harm should happen to his person. 74 After the conference with 71 Creton, pp. 149-150. Trai'son (pp. 200-201) says that, in his lamentation, the king recognized a parallel between his situation and Jesus' betrayal and spoke thus: " ' . . . we are all betrayed, and given without cause into the hands of our enemies; for God's sake have patience, and call to mind our Saviour, who was undeservedly sold and given into the hands of his enemies' ". 72 Ibid., pp. 151-152. 73 Ibid., p. 157. Creton comments (p. 157) that Henry had removed Albemarle from the office of constable of England and from the dukedom of Albemarle, but continues, "I firmly believe that he took them away from him for a pretense, and to blind the world, that no one might think that he knew anything of the affair or of the treason [deliberately causing Richard's delay in Ireland], rather than for any other cause: and yet I know not whether he was at all acquainted with it." 74 Creton, p. 158. Webb, the editor of Creton, thinks it was at this point that Richard, intimidated, agreed to resign his crown. His acquiescent answer to Henry a few hours later seems to indicate that he had already agreed to his resignation; and this is the only opportunity he had had, since his capture, to make such an arrangement.

140

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

the archbishop, Richard returned to the castle wall; when Henry's army was within two bowshots of Flint, the king again began his lamentations, bewailing his consort and expressing a Christ-like resignation to God's will, in these words: " 'Good Lord God! I commend myself into thy holy keeping. . . since it is thy pleasure that I should be delivered into the hands of mine enemies; and if they cause me to die, I will take death patiently as thou didst take it for us all.' " 7 S Henry's host having surrounded the castle and having waited for the king to dine, continues Creton, Richard was brought down from the doi\jon to meet the duke, who entered the castle armed at all points except for his basinet, and, after the formalities, spoke as follows, bowing low to the ground: "My Lord, I am come sooner than you sent for me: the reason wherefore I will tell you. The common report of your people is such, that you have, for the space of twenty or two and twenty years, governed them very badly and very rigorously, and in so much that they are not well contented therewith. But if it please our Lord, I will help you to govern them better than they have been governed in time past." The king replied: "Fair cousin, since it pleaseth you, it pleaseth us well." 7 6 Creton concludes his account of the taking of the king with a tongue-in-cheek reference to a prophecy by Merlin and Bede that Richard should be captured. He goes on to quote an aged knight of Henry's council as saying there was in a book belonging to him these words: "'There shall be a king in Albion, who shall reign for the space of twenty or two and twenty years in great honour and in great power, and shall be allied and united with those of Gaul; which king shall be undone in the parts of the north in a triangular place.' " 7 7 The "triangular place", the old knight explained, was Conway; the king was " u n d o n e " when he was drawn forth from Conway by Northumberland. Traison (pp. 193-214) agrees essentially with Cretan's history in the general outline of the narrative, but adds interesting material to 75 76 77

Ibid., pp. 160; 162-163. Ibid., pp. 163-168. Ibid., pp. 168-170.

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

141

the account of Richard's thoughts at Flint. At this time, says Trai'son, the king remembered that he had been warned against Henry by the Duke of Brittany and had nevertheless unwisely spared his cousin's life on a number of occasions, which Richard recalled as follows: (1) once the king had ridden all night to save Henry from the wrath of John of Gaunt, about to put him to death for treason; (2) once the king had pardoned Henry for drawing a sword on him in the presence of the queen (Anne); (3) again Richard had forgiven Henry for treason, this time for plotting with Gloucester and Arundel to murder the king, the council, and John of Gaunt; (4) and a number of other times, says Richard, he had saved Henry from being condemned to death by his own father. 7 8 The Monk of Saint-Denys seems to follow Trai'son generally and Creton's history occasionally in his account of the taking of the king. Contrary to his sources, however, he records that Henry's ambassador at Conway asked only for peace and pardon for offenses. 7 9 The monk pictures Henry as approaching the king at Flint "with feigned respect and the kiss of a traitor". 8 0 After his description of Richard's submission to Henry, this chronicler gives an entire chapter to lamenting the captivity of the king. He begins with an apostrophe to England, " 0 detestable monster, for whom all words are impotent", and continues that, to their eternal ignominy and shame, the English people have imprisoned their king. He regrets that Richard had not listened to the prophet who said, "And the leopard shall lie down under the shade of the lilies." For, if Richard had taken refuge in France, his wife would not have had to replace her lilies with mourning clothing. 81 The Dieulacres Chronicle gives a brief independent account of the capture of Richard, without mention of the ambushing. When Henry heard that the king was at Conway, says the chronicler, he sent a legation requesting that Richard and his party should willingly present themselves to the duke, who was the rightful seneschal of England, and to the commons (presumably for parliamentary trial of the king's followers). Through the mediation especially of the archbishop and of Northumberland, it was promised by oath that Richard should remain

78

Traison, pp. 203-206.

79 80 81

Saint-Denys, II, 714. ¡bid., p. 714, 716. Ibid., p. Hi.

142

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

in his regal power and dominion. On this condition, three days later the king handed himself over to the legation willingly and m e t Henry at Flint. However, says Dieulacres,

the terms were " n o t at all kept but

reduced t o nothing". 8 2 In describing the renunciation in the T o w e r and the parliament that

deposed

Richard, the four major Ricardian histories,

taken

together, give a very different picture f r o m that drawn by the Saint Albans group. In direct contrast to the Saint Albans account o f the king's voluntarily resigning with a happy face is the following brief statement by Creton: "Thus right or wrong, they b y agreement caused King Richard t o make a declaration in the T o w e r o f L o n d o n , in a most

wicked

manner." 8 3

This

instrument

of

renunciation,

says

Creton, which had been witnessed b y bishops and abbots, was read aloud in parliament by a lawyer and a notary. T h e comment o f the chronicler is that the English were an ungrateful people; after holding Richard t o be their rightful king f o r twenty-two years, " b y a great error they ruined him with one accord". Nothing else is said about the proceedings o f this parliament. The author o f Trai'son does not record that Richard resigned his crown in the T o w e r or in any other place. He gives a unique account of

parliament, flatly disagreeing with the traditional Saint Albans

description. According to the French chronicler, this parliament lasted for three days, the events o f each o f which he records minutely. First day (September abdication

and o f

30). — Omitting, o f course, the reading o f the

the deposition sentence, Trai'son

recounts that

Henry himself, seated on the throne after being elected b y acclamation, accused Richard o f the f o l l o w i n g crimes: ( 1 ) that the king, along with his council, had put to death, without cause, the t w o greatest warriors o f the country, Gloucester and Arundel, for which crime he " h a d f o r f e i t e d his life and his c r o w n " ; ( 2 ) that Richard, when he w e n t to Ireland, had farmed the realm out to four knights, the heads o f three o f w h o m Henry had sent to L o n d o n and the fourth o f w h o m he had imprisoned; and ( 3 ) that the king had destroyed a village b y fire, 8 4 f o r which he had f o r f e i t e d his kingship. Henry then asked the

82 Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 173. 83 Creton, p. 197. 84 Traison, p. 220. Nothing is known of Richard's burning an English village. In the uprising of January, 1400, the king's friends did burn Cirencester; but Henry's speech belongs to September 30, 1399.

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

143

will of the members of parliament in the matter of punishing the king; they said they would answer next day. Second day (October 1 j. — In its description of the second day of parliament, Traison gives the unique account, in the chronicles, of the Bishop of Carlisle's speech in defense of Richard. 8S At the beginning of the day's proceedings, the bishop rose and protested against the right of parliament to pass judgment on its sovereign. He said that no one present was competent to judge the king, for Richard had not been brought before his judges to defend himself or even to hear his sentence. Further, Carlisle asserted that Henry had offended against Richard more than Richard against the duke. In the first place, Henry had returned to England without permission, although he had been banished for ten years by the council, with his own father's consent. Next Henry had seated himself on the throne, where no one but the lawfully crowned king had a right to sit. The bishop advised that parliament should call Richard before it, in order to hear what he had to say or whether he was willing to give up his crown. Henry's answer was to have Carlisle arrested and imprisoned at Saint Albans. Then, following up his request of the day before, Henry demanded sentence upon the king. This, read out by the recorder of London, was imprisonment in a royal castle. "Thus", says Trai'son, "was he falsely sentenced by the said Parliament." Third day (October 2). — The Commons requested that Surrey, Exeter, and Albemarle be put to death; Albemarle and Salisbury were charged with treachery to both Henry and Richard and were challenged to duels; indeed, forty pledges were thrown on the floor by lords challenging one another. Also, Hall confessed that he had assisted at the murder of Gloucester. 86 The Monk of Saint-Denys is, as usual, indebted to both Traison 85 Traison, pp. 221-222. It has been stated above (p. 128) that Eulogium records the presence of Carlisle in parliament on September 30. For the controversy as to whether or not he was actually present, either at the Septembei parliament or at Henry's first parliament in October, and, if so, whether he really made a speech of protestation, see the following: Steel, Richard II, pp. 281-282, and M. V. Clarke, Fourteenth Century Studies, ed. L. S. Sutherland and M. McKisack (Oxford, 1937), pp. 86-88. In Richard II (Act IV, scene i) Shakespeare has given immortality to this speech of Carlisle's. 86 Ibid., pp. 223-224. Other chronicles say that these proceedings took place in Henry's first parliament, October, 1399. (See, for example, Historia Anglicana,

144

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

and Cretan's history; but he does make one decided variation in this section of the story: the reversal of the order in which the resignation in the Tower and the accusation in parliament took place. The monk apparently thought that the parliament known as Richard's last convened for two days. Certain accusations against the king, he says such as cruelty, tyranny, high taxes, and his treaty with France were placed before the members of parliament, who, in their implacable hatred toward Richard, "neglected the forms of justice and without having called or listened to him [the king] condemned him unjustly to perpetual imprisonment". 87 Then, a little later, says the chronicler of Saint-Denys, Henry had a secret conference with Richard in the Tower and compelled him by fear of death, "as it is believed", to hand over his signet ring and to resign the crown to the duke himself. Henry had the resignation made public in the presence of a great number of bishops, abbots, and earls. On October 1, Richard's instrument of renunciation, acknowledging that he was incapable of reigning, was read in parliament, and witnesses were brought to vouch for its authenticity. The Dieulacres Chronicle gives a very brief account of how the king yielded his crown. While parliament was being held in London, Richard was told that both lords and plebeians favored his deposition. Then, reports Dieulacres, the king "asked humbly, it is said, that he not be led into parliament; and he resigned his right to God, the crown of the kingdom having been placed on the ground". 88 The less important French and English pre-Yorkist chronicles dealing with the downfall of the king are Froissart's Chronicles and the Kirkstall Chronicle. Up to Richard's arrival at Conway, neither of these histories varies in any significant way from the usual Ricardian description of events; but, concerning the capture, the renunciation, and the deposition parliament, rather different and interesting accounts are given. Froissart was evidently erroneously informed about some events that happened in England during this period, for he makes a number of obvious errors. Without any mention of Conway, Froissart records II, 239-242; Annales, pp. 288-289; Eulogium, III, 384-385.) Surrey, Exeter, and Salibury were imprisoned but later released. Hall was beheaded. 87 Saint-Denys, II, 722. 88 Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 173.

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

145

that Henry determined, upon advice, to take Richard and his friends at Flint, by force or otherwise, dead or alive, and to conduct them to London. And so the duke went to Flint Castle, taking with him only two hundred men, but ordering his main army to be ready to advance in case of need. By sending word that he had come for his inheritance, Henry, with eleven followers, gained admission to the castle. Richard had been advised to dissemble with fair speeches until Exeter, who was then in Calais, 89 says Froissart, could get there and make peace for him with the people. Froissart praises the bravery of Henry and his followers in entering the castle, for Richard's friends might have slain them, "which", he adds, "they should have done, right or wrong". 9 0 Once inside the castle, the duke, showing no reverence, told Richard that he should breakfast since he had a long way to ride. Then Henry told the king that the Londoners were determined to imprison him in the Tower. Richard was very much frightened, says Froissart, and yielded himself as captive to the duke, on condition that the design of the Londoners should be warded off. The resignation of Richard in the Tower is presented by Froissart as a ruse on the king's part to stall for time until aid should come to him. Upon the advice of his followers, who feared for their own lives, Richard had already offered to resign freely and had been told by Henry that the resignation must be made before representatives of the three estates, who were then gathering. About three days later, Henry returned to the Tower, accompanied by York, Albemarle, Northumberland, Thomas Percy, and a number of dukes, prelates, earls, barons, knights, and citizens, in order to receive the king's formal resignation. Richard came down into the hall royally dressed, sceptre in hand, crown on head, but without supporters on either side. He addressed the company as follows: "I have reigned king of England, duke of Aquitaine, and lord of Ireland, about twenty-two years, which royalty, lordship, sceptre, and crown, I now freely and willingly resign to my cousin, Henry of Lancaster, and entreat of him, in the presence of you all, to accept this sceptre." 91

89 Exeter had been given the captaincy of Calais upon Norfolk's banishment, but he was in reality with Richard at this time. 90 Froissart, II, 691-692. 91

Ibid., p. 698.

146

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

Then he gave the duke the sceptre and, taking off his crown, placed it before him, saying: " H e n r y , . . . I present and give to you this crown . . . and all the rights dependent on it!" Having given the sceptre and the crown to the archbishop, the duke had a notary public called in that an authentic act of the above proceedings might be drawn up and witnessed. In his single paragraph about the parliament of September 30, Froissart says Henry made three claims to the crown: conquest, inheritance, and "the pure and free resignation of it to him, by king Richard . . . in the hall of the Tower of London". 9 2 Neither the accusations nor the sentence of deposition is referred to in this account of parliament. When he wrote the section of his history dealing with the events of this episode, the chronicler of Kirkstall Abbey was apparently intimidated by fear of Henry's displeasure. For in that part of his chronicle written during the reign of Richard, he is Ricardian in his sympathies; but in the section composed after the accession of Henry, he becomes for the most part either noncommittal or mildly Lancastrian. 93 For example, the account of Richard's capture is softened in favor of the duke. It is said that Richard assented to the persuasions of Northumberland, who had been sent by Henry to Conway; the next day the king met the duke at a place not far away and, "according to a definite plan of Henry and other lords", was led to the Tower, where he was put under guard. 94 Whether Northumberland's "persuasions" included false promises, as the sympathetic chroniclers contend, and whether or not the king had been acquainted with the "definite plan of Henry and other lords", the chronicler does not say. From his brief account, it is difficult to decide just how and where the Kirkstall historian believed Richard to have made his resignation. Certainly there is no specific mention of a scene in the Tower. The chronicler says that, when parliament had begun, in October, 1399, Richard "renounced the regal crown and regimen of the kingdom of England in this form". Then a copy of the form of renunciation is inserted from the Rolls of Parliament. The monk does not explain his

91

93 94

¡bid.

See below, Appendix A, pp. 230-231. Kirkstall Chronicle, p. 134.

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

characterization of the renunciation as "to be wondered ("admirabilem").

147 at"

THE YORKISTS' DESCRIPTION OF RICHARD'S S T R U G G L E WITH H E N R Y

The majority of the Yorkist chroniclers imply that Richard did not willingly submit himself to the duke, as the Lancastrians say. They record that Henry seized his sovereign in north Wales; there is no mention, however, of the ambush between Conway and Flint, described by the French chroniclers. As to the resignation in the Tower, some Yorkists say Richard was forced to abdicate; one records that, according to Henry's assertion, the king voluntarily resigned the crown to him; the others either omit the scene in the Tower entirely or simply say Richard renounced the crown, taking for granted, apparently, that the resignation must have been forced, since the king was a captive when it was made. To other aspects of Richard's fall, the Yorkists give little space and add nothing significant, for, provided they can show Henry's guilt, they are little concerned with exonerating Richard from charges of fear and ineptness. Hardyng's Chronicle is the most favorable to Richard. According to Hardyng, the king came from Ireland to Flint, where he mustered large numbers of men; but they, after taking the king's wages, deserted to the duke. Meanwhile the duke had landed at Ravenspurg and had ridden to Doncaster, where he was joined by the three Percys and the Earl of Westmoreland. (Hardyng excuses the alliance of the Earl of Westmoreland with Henry on the grounds that Westmoreland had married the duke's sister.) Then Henry sent the Earl of Northumberland, apparently alone, to treat with Richard, who by this time was at Conway. Hardyng reports this interview in such guarded language that it is impossible to tell precisely, according to him, what did take place at Conway. The stanza from Hardyng follows: In this meane whyle therle of Northumberlande Treated with the kyng that tyme in Conwaye, To mete with duke Henry then in Englande, And brought hym then to hym in meke araye, With litell speche to Chester then the waye,

148

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

They rode anone and put hym there in warde, And so to London from thens came southwarde. 9s Hardyng describes the resignation in the Tower and the deposition in parliament in noncommittal fashion also, without any direct condemnation of the proceedings. 96 He simply says that the king resigned his right, his realm, and his crown to Henry — an act to which no man made resistance at the time. Then, as a result of the renunciation, parliament passed sentence of deposition upon Richard for his 95 Hardyng, p. 350. The earlier, or Lansdowne, version of Hardyng's Chronicle has the following lines in place of the first five lines of the revised version, quoted above: Then came the Earl of Northumberland To him [Richard] direct . . . Who through treaty and full discrete covenant Him brought anon without felony Unto the duke . . . . It will be noted that the phrase "without felony" is omitted in the later version. This omission may mean that, before he remodeled his history, Hardyng had found that Northumberland was party to Henry's treacherous plot for capturing the king. (For pertinent remarks, see Webb's comments in his edition of Créton, pp. 239-241, note t.) Hardyng would naturally want to protect the Percy name since he was long a protégé of Sir Henry Percy; hence the guarded wording of the revised history. 96 Hardyng, p. 351. In the prose addition to the revised version, however, which occurs in both the Harleian and Selden manuscripts of his Chronicle, Hardyng twice condemns Henry directly and emphatically for the fact that he forced the king to resign in the Tower by fear of death and then, under color of this renunciation, took the crown away from him, against the oath the duke had made to the Percys at Doncaster. The chronicler's first condemnation given in the prose addition comes when he quotes, in justification of the Percys' uprising against Henry, the challenge sent to the duke before the battle of Shrewsbury, including the following passage: "Quod quando tu post exilium tuum Angliam intrasti, apud Doncastre tu jurasti nobis supra sacra evangelia corporaliter per te tacta et osculata juxta clamare regnum, seu regium statum, nisi solummodo hereditatem tuam propriam et hereditatem uxoris tue in Anglia, et quod Ricardus dominus noster rex ad tunc regnaret ad terminum vite sue gubematus per bonum consilium dominorum spiritualium et temporalium. Tu ipsum dominum tuum et regem nostrum imprisonasti infra turrim London quousque resignaverat metu mortis régna Anglie et Francie, et renunciaverat totum jus suum regnis predictis et aliis dominiis suis et terris deultra mare. Colore quarum resignacionis et renunciacionis, tuorum fautorum consilio, ac publica vociferacione, vulgaris populi apud Westmonasterium per te et tuos complices collecti, tu te coronasti in regem regnorum predictorum et seisiri fecisti omnia castra et dominia regalia contra sacramentum tuum; unde perjuratus es, et falsus."

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

149

misgovernment. What Hardyng records just before this passage, however, concerning the duke's promise at Doncaster, and what he records immediately after the passage put Henry in a very bad light for his acceptance of the crown. At Doncaster, the duke had sworn by sacramental oath to claim no more than his inheritance, to cut taxes, dismiss the Cheshire guards, and provide for good government on Richard's part. Believing Henry would keep his oath, Northumberland and his son had sent their retainers back home. So, reports Hardyng, when the duke, who had not dismissed his men, was elected to the throne by a parliament keenly aware of the youth of the rightful heir, March, and of the power of Henry, the Percys dared not oppose him. They did counsel him to keep his oath, but to no avail.97 Besides Hardyng's Chronicle, the only other Yorkist history that varies from the usual Yorkist version of the fall of the king enough to deserve discussion here is Davies' Chronicle,98 which shares a common source with Eulogium in the main. The author of Davies' Chronicle describes the forced surrender to Henry and the promise to The second condemnation in the prose addition occurs when Hardyng quotes Northumberland as saying as follows: "that the seid kynge Henry made kynge Richarde vnder dures of prison in the Toure of London in fere of his life to make a resignation of his right to hym and upon that a renunciation of the seide right". Hardyng adds: "And the two declared in the counsell and in the parlement at Westmynster, on the morowe of seynt Michell than next followynge, what of his myght and his wilfulness, and what be certeyne lordes and strenght of the comons, he wase crounde ayenst his oth made in the White Ffreres at Doncastre to the seide erle of Northumberlonde and other lordes, ayenst the wille and counsell of the seide erle and of his sonne, and of Thomas Percy earl of Worcestri, for which cause they died after." (See Hardyng, p. 325, note.) 97 Hardyng, pp. 350-351. 98 Davies' Chronicle, pp. 15-17. Another Yorkist history, not taken up for this period, is Capgrave's Chronicle, pp. 270-274. This later history of Capgrave's (dedicated to Edward IV, instead of to Henry VI, as the earlier Liber was) is on the whole tolerant of Richard and hostile to Henry - but, in describing the fall of the king, it is perhaps more favorable to Henry than elsewhere. Minor Yorkist histories for this episode are the Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, pp. 353-354; A Short English Chronicle, p. 28; and John de Wavrin's A Collection of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain, Now Called England, trans. Sir William Hardy and Edward L. C. P. Hardy, Rolls Series (London, 1887), II, 4. What Wavrin has to say about the fall of the king in Volume I of his Chronicles cannot be recorded here, for the portion of Wavrin's history dealing with Richard's reign is omitted in the Rolls Series and is

150

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

resign — both at Conway, he says — almost exactly as the author of Eulogium does. The account of the resignation in the Tower depicts the king's initial refusal to give up his crown; but Carlisle's presence in parliament is not recorded, as it is in Eulogium.

T H E N O N P A R T I S A N S ' A T T E M P T TO G I V E AN OBJECTIVE A C C O U N T OF THE KING'S D O W N F A L L

The story of Richard's fall, dealing as it does with the touchy question of divine right, must have been fraught with emotion, even for historians so distant from the king's deposition as the late Yorkist and early Tudor chroniclers. Yet Caxton, at least, achieves some degree of impartiality, leaning, nevertheless, toward sympathy for Richard. The king, says Caxton, at once made preparations to leave Ireland; there is no mention of a delay. Having arrived at Milford Haven, Richard and his host tarried there two days for refreshment. No reference is made to York's army. Meanwhile, continues Caxton, the lords and most of the king's people, hearing that Henry's army became stronger and stronger, began to complain. The chronicler's explanation for the growing strength of the duke's army places the blame on the king's counselors, not the king; the people of England, says Caxton, were so sorely oppressed by officers of the crown that they joined Henry in order to be relieved. Seeing the situation thus, Sir Thomas Percy called together the king's men and, breaking his rod of office, bade every man to go his way, "vnwetyng the kynge". So that night everyone left Richard, except two or three lords with a few m e n . " These few lords, by the advice of Percy, brought the king to the castle of Flint (there is no mention of Conway). Here, says Caxton, the king was taken and deliverd to Henry. Though his history is generally impartial, in reporting the events of this period, Fabyan takes a Lancastrian point of view. True, up to the time he describes the deposition parliament, the chronicler tries to be objective and is even occasionally favorable to Richard. He records that the king, upon being warned of Henry's arrival in Ravenspurg, returned to England with such haste that he left much of his ordnance behind. Having landed at Milford Haven, in the beginning of Septemn o t readily available. 99 Caxton, Higden's

Polychronicort,

VIII, 5 3 8 - 5 3 9 .

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

151

ber (sic), Richard went to Flint Castle in Wales and waited there to gather more men. 1 0 0 Fabyan does not mention York's army. Here Richard, hearing of Henry's strength in arms, "feryd sore of hymselfe, and in lyke wyse so dyd all suche as were about hym"; therefore Sir Thomas Percy broke his white rod of office and commanded every man to shift for himself. Fabyan blames Percy for this deed, saying the seneschal acted contrary to his allegiance. The king's men dispersed; and shortly afterwards Richard was taken (the chronicler does not say where) and turned over to Henry, who put him in safekeeping. From this point on, Fabyan's account follows the Lancastrian narratives in most respects. During parliament (the first day of which the chronicler calls September 13, not September 30) twenty-eight articles were drawn up against Richard, showing the reasons why "he shulde renounce and wylfullye be deposyd from all kynglye mageste" on September 29. The resignation to be made was voluntary, says Fabyan, "as it shulde seme, by the copy of an instrument hereafter shewyd". 1 0 1 The chronicler then presents a document describing the proceedings in the Tower on September 29. It includes the names of the representatives from the three estates who were sent to Richard in the Tower; the reminder to Richard of his promise, made to Northumberland and Archbishop Arundel at Conway, that, because of insufficiency to govern, he would gladly yield his crown to Henry; 1 0 2 the king's acknowledgment of this promise and his statement of his intention to implement it; his request to have a bill of his resignation for purposes of study; the interview with the duke and the archbishop; Richard's statement, made with a glad countenance, that he was ready to renounce his kingly majesty; Richard's personal reading aloud of the form of abdication (the document is given by Fabyan); and the giving of the signet ring to Henry, with the request that the Archbishop of York be appointed to report to parliament the

100 Fabyan, p. 545. 101 Ibid. p. 546. 102 It is interesting to note that, later on in Fabyan's chronicle (pp. 565-566), Sir John Bagot is quoted as saying, during his trial in the first parliament of Henry IV, that Richard had said, if he were ever deposed, he wanted Henry to have the throne, as the ablest person to rule, but Richard feared the duke would tyrannize over the church.

152

THE FALL OF RICHARD II

king's voluntary resignation, his good feelings toward the duke, and his wish that Henry succeed him. 103 After the presentation of the above documentary evidence as to the voluntary nature of the king's resignation, Fabyan, following a version of the London Chronicles, describes the proceedings in parliament on September 30. The Archbishop of York, as requested, reported the king's free yielding of the crown and his desire for Henry to succeed him. The lords and the Commons accepted the renunciation ¡nevertheless, "in avoydynge of all suspeccyon and surmyses of ille dysposyd persones", the twenty-eight articles which had been drawn up were to be read to the people and to be placed on record. The reading of these articles, however, was not done at this time, according to Fabyan, but was deferred. The chronicler continues that he will not include these articles in his history since they are long to write, would not give pleasure to some readers, and, anyway, are set out "in the booke" under the mayoral year of Drew Barentyne. 104 Then parliament appointed a commission to make public the sentence of deposition and also to announce it to Richard in the Tower. Speaking for this commission, Thirning renounced allegiance to Richard for all the estates, in the same manner and form, says Fabyan, as that described earlier in his chronicle, under the nineteenth year of Edward II. 105 Fabyan ends his account of the deposition with a statement that Richard lost his throne "by reason of his euyll counceyll, and suche unlefull wayes and meanys as he by his insolency in his realme sufferyd to be vsed, whan he had reygnyd .xxii. yeres. iii monethes and", viii. dayes".

S U M M A R Y O F THE D I V E R G E N T A C C O U N T S O F T H E F A L L O F R I C H A R D II

Contemporary chronicles contain full and rich accounts of what happened from the time that Richard heard the news of Henry's arrival in England until the day, not three months later, when he also 103

Fabyan, pp. 546-548. Ibid., p. 548.The book referred to is obviously one of the Chronicles of London. 1Q 5 Ibid., pp. 548-549; 552. 104

T H E F A L L O F R I C H A R D II

153

heard Justice Thirning pronounce the absolution of the English people from their allegiance to their sovereign. Nevertheless, because of the contradictory nature of these records, the character and behavior of the king at the very climax of his career must have seemed almost as undiscoverable to the sixteenth century as it does to the twentieth. The Saint Albans chroniclers apparently try to establish Richard's acceptance of his inability t o rule adequately, his wish t o resign, and his cheerful execution of that wish. The French chroniclers, on the other hand, attempt to show that Richard had no idea of giving up his crown but was confidently making plans to extricate himself and his friends from their difficult situation and finally resigned in the Tower only with reluctance and from fear of death. Renaissance writers, paging through such fifteenth-century histories as these to learn the story of Richard's fall, would need to harmonize the following contradictory statements: (1) Richard, upon hearing of Henry's landing, unaccountably delayed his departure from Ireland; or the king was detained in Ireland by the treachery of Albemarle; (2) York was able to gather an army for Richard only through virtual bribery, and the men soon scattered; or more than sixty thousand men at once answered York's summons and marched loyally in the king's cause until the guardian of the kingdom himself deserted to the other side; (3) when the king returned from Ireland and learned the strength of the opposing army, in fear and despair he fled to north Wales, leaving his men to be dismissed by the senschal, and sought safety first in one castle, then in another; or, upon his arrival, Richard went directly to Conway in order to join Salisbury's forces, without a suspicion that the royal army would be treacherously dismissed during his absence; (4) at Conway the king, seeing no hope of escape, offered to resign his crown on the conditions of safety for himself and for certain friends and honorable support for himself; or at Conway, with escape by sea still open to him, Richard did not resign but accepted in good faith Northumberland's oath that Henry's terms for peace included only restoration of the duke's inheritance and parliamentary trial of the king's friends; (5) his conditions of safety and support having been accepted, Richard willingly submitted himself to Henry at Flint; or, trusting to Nortumberland's oath, the king started out to join Henry at Flint, but was ambushed on the way and taken to Flint as a prisoner; (6) according to his promise made at Conway, Richard willingly, freely, and cheerfully resigned his crown in the Tower in the presence of a parliamentary commission; or the king, having made no

154

THE FALL O F RICHARD II

such promise at Conway, resigned in the Tower only when forced by fear of death to do so; (7) sentence of deposition was passed upon Richard by the three estates without dissenting voice; or the Bishop of Carlisle decried parliament's right to judge its sovereign and demanded for the king an opportunity to defend himself before the three estates; (8) upon being reminded that he had confessed inability to rule and had willingly given up his crown and that therefore the English people had resigned allegiance to him, Richard, answered that he expected no more; or, under the same circumstances the king said that he had confessed, not lack of ability, but the hostility of the people to his government; also that, while he had resigned the rule, he had not and could not resign the spiritual honor of the characters impressed upon him and the oil of the anointment. It is worthy of note that, even among the Lancastrian chroniclers, there are a number who do not accept, in its entirety, the Saint Albans story of Richard's fall. Adam of Usk, for example, suggests compulsion at Conway; the Monk of Evesham records no promise at all to resign; and Eulogium says Henry himself came to Conway and seized Richard there by force. Neither Capgrave, in his Liber de Illustribus Henricis, nor Usk carries on the Saint Albans tradition of a cheerful resignation in the Tower, The Monk of Evesham omits altogether a resignation scene, and Eulogium records that the king actually refused to resign in the Tower and then was forced to do so. None of the chronicles is really impartial in describing this episode. Froissart, who can generally be counted on to attain some degree of objectivity, is so obviously misinformed about certain facts that the rest of his narrative for this period can not be considered reliable. Caxton, through the omission of such controversial matters as Conway and the resignation in the Tower, achieves a kind of surface impartiality; but the tenor of his account is really sympathetic toward the king. Because of the divergences in the chronicles, then, different sixteenth-century historians and poets might easily record the fall of Richard in different ways, without any one of them violating the truth of history as he had read it.

VI THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL OF RICHARD II

The most famous description of Richard's humiliation and death in Renaissance literature, like the most brilliant word painting of the duel pageantry, is found in Shakespeare's Richard II. Here (Act V, scene v) the captive king rallies all the latent powers of his manhood, puts up a decisive, vigorous, and courageous fight for his life, and dies "as full of valour as of royal blood", to quote the phrase that Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Richard's murderer. But there is no unanimity among the early chronicles as to whether or not Richard actually died in this courageous manner. For the early fifteenth-century records of the humiliation and death, like the accounts of other aspects of Richard's career, left to sixteenth-century writers a most confusing picture of what happened to the king during the six months succeeding his capture. Indeed, concerning the death itself, at least three different theories are expressed; in addition, there are those writers who say they do not know how the death came about or who deny that Richard was dead. Moreover, it is not possible to predict which point of view will be taken by a given chronicler; that is, a writer who generally favors a Lancastrian point of view may record an anti-Henry version of the death, 1 and vice versa. This divergence from "party lines" with respect to the death has necessitated in this chapter a different type of organization from that used for the five former chapters. The entire episode of the i Perhaps some Lancastrians felt that a pro-Henry end piece did not fit neatly into the pattern contrived by the Saint Albans school. For, they might have reasoned, if Richard, with happy countenance, was content to resign his crown into more capable hands, as the Lancastrians held, how could it be believed that, a few months later, this same Richard would die of grief, as the Lancastrians also held, from the failure of a plot to restore him to the throne he had gladly given up?

156

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

humiliation and death is primarily organized according to the subtopics into which the episode is divided, and only secondarily according to chronicle slant. These subtopics are: (1) the treatment of Richard from his capture to his death; (2) the death of Richard; and (3) the burial of the king. The first subtopic is organized by traditional chronicle slant; the second is divided according to a realignment of the chroniclers based on the opinions they hold about the death; the third returns to organization by the traditional slant of the chronicle.

CHRONICLE ACCOUNTS OF THE TREATMENT O F R I C H A R D FROM HIS C A P T U R E T O HIS D E A T H

The Lancastrian Detractors' Version of the Treatment of the King The Lancastrians, on the whole, picture Henry as treating Richard with consideration on the journey from Flint to London and according him the customary regal honors. Annates gives most detail. 2 Riding together along the way from Flint, Henry and Richard showed a good face on both sides. The duke, says Annates, "treated the King reverently and honorably; not permitting anyone to insult him publicly or privately". 3 As they moved from town to town, Henry caused solemn processions to be made for the king at the places where there were religious; he permitted no ceremonies for himself, such as the burning of incense, but, putting the king forward, stood back beautifully armed, waiting until the accustomed honors had been shown to Richard.

2 Annates, pp. 250-251. Besides the Lancastrian histories discussed in this chapter, other anti-Richard chronicles that deal with the treatment of the king after his capture but have little to add to the fuller accounts given above are as follows: Otterbourne's Chronica, pp. 208-209, 223; Walsingham's Historia Anglicana, II, 234; Walsingham's Ypodigma, p. 386; Gower's Cronica Tripertita, Tercia Pars, lines 244-248, in The Complete Works, ed. Macaulay, IV, 336; Eulogium, III, 382, 383-384, 387; Capgrave's Liber de Illustribus Henricis, p. 102; the Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in the Brut, Part II, pp. 358-359; the Continuation of the Brut (Harleian MS 53), in the Brut, Part II, p. 545; The Great Chronicle of London, pp. 83, 72-73; and the Continuation of the Polychronicon (Harleian MS 2261), in Polychronicon, VIII, 508-509. 3

Annates,

p. 250.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

157

At Chester the king's friends 4 were allowed to sup and spend the night with him for his consolation. Moreover, the duke granted willingly the request of Richard that no plebeians be allowed to enter his apartment lest they rush in disrespectfully and annoy him with their insolence. At Saint Albans, it is true, as at other places, a guard of about a thousand men was placed around Richard at night, but the chronicler records no protest on the king's part. As the party approached London, Henry led his prisoner directly to Westminster Palace because Richard did not wish to be seen by the Londoners, whom he believed to be happy about his overthrow. The following day he was moved to the Tower via the Thames, not through the city streets, to await the next parliament. No comment is made upon Henry's treatment of his prisoner in the Tower, except in so far as a certain shaming of the deposed king may be implied from the note that Henry's magnificent coronation escort was preceded from the Tower to Westminster by more than fifty green-garbed knights, who had been knighted by the new king the day before; no names are given. 5 Henry is not mentioned in connection with the sentence of perpetual imprisonment passed upon Richard; this was decreed by parliament, says Annates, with the consent of the Commoners, who further ruled that Richard be removed to a secret place, designated by the Council, and that he be served by persons unknown to him and forbidden to send or receive letters. Accordingly, shortly after midnight toward the end of October, 1399, Richard was led from the Tower to a place unknown to all. 6 Another Lancastrian chronicler, unassociated with the Saint Albans group, is not so clear-cut in presenting Henry in a favorable light. Adam of Usk makes no direct comment on whether or not Henry treated Richard with respect after the arrest; yet the chronicler mentions certain events on the journey that must have been mortifying to the king. Although there is n o evidence that these 4

The friends of the king who kept him company at Chester and elsewhere are named in Cretan's Histoire, p. 174, as follows: Salisbury, Carlisle, Exeter, Surrey, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Saint David's, the Earl of Gloucester, Sir Stephen Scrope, Sir William Ferriby, and Jenico. s Annates, p. 291. (Adam of Usk says the knighting took place in Richard's actual presence. See below, p. 158.) 6 The Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12) says that Richard was moved from the Tower to Leeds Castle in Kent and then to Pontefract in the north country. (See the Brut, Part II, pp. 358-359.)

158

THE H U M I L I A T I O N , DEATH, A N D B U R I A L

humiliations were planned by Henry, at least it is not recorded that the duke took

any steps to

alleviate his captive's embarrassment.

A

deputation o f three aldermen and fifty other London citizens came all the way to Chester, says Usk, to renounce fealty to Richard. T h e y reported that a mob o f Londoners, hearing that Richard had fled secretly to Westminster A b b e y , had gathered in arms there to take him but, not finding Richard, had captured and held in custody three supporters o f the king: Roger Walden, archbishop o f Canterbury; Nicholas Slake, dean of the King's Chapel at Westminster; and Ralph de Selby, warden o f King's Hall, Cambridge. 7 Moreover, A d a m o f Usk says, a slanderous report o f the birth o f Richard was being noised abroad, "as o f one not sprung f r o m a father o f royal race, but f r o m a mother given to slippery ways o f l i f e " . 8 Adam o f Usk never overtly suggests that Henry's treatment o f the prisoner in the T o w e r was harsh. But he does state that, in Richard's presence, Henry I V created new knights, 9 f o r t y - t w o in all, including his four sons 1 0 and the sons o f Richard's former enemies, Arundel and Warwick; in great state, the procession o f Henry, his nobles, and his new knights passed f r o m the T o w e r to Westminster. Alone among the Lancastrians, Adam o f Usk pictures Richard as weeping and lamenting in the T o w e r . On September 21, says A d a m , Sir William Beauchamp t o o k the chronicler to the Tower to mark the m o o d and bearing o f Richard. They found the prisoner sorrowfully mourning in these words: " ' M y god! a wonderful land is this, and a fickle; which hath exiled, slain, destroyed, or ruined so many kings, rulers, and great men, and is ever tainted and toileth with strife and variance and envy.' " 1 1

A d a m describes himself as being " m o v e d at

heart" by the sad state o f the king. He also notes that Richard was served, not by his familiars, but by strangers appointed to spy upon him. The f e w remaining glimpses o f Richard in the T o w e r , as seen through the eyes o f Adam o f Usk, show the dethroned king in an

i Adam of Usk, p. 179. 8 Ibid., pp. 180-181. For p. 166.

a similar

statement

by

Froissart,

see

below,

9 Adam of Usk, p. 33. The citation here is to the original Latin text of Adam, as Thompson's translation does not seem justifiable at this point. 10 Henry IV's apparent refusal to recognize the validity of Richard's knighting o f young Henry, which had taken place in Ireland several months earlier, is certainly not flattering to the former king. ii

Adam of Usk, p. 182.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

159

equally melancholy state. The story of Richard's g r e y h o u n d , which h a d deserted the king u p o n his flight f r o m Carmarthen and h a d gone straight to Henry at Shrewsbury, heightens the effect of the king's melancholy. A f t e r the deposition, A d a m says, when Richard was c o n f r o n t e d with the dog in the T o w e r , the animal showed n o recognition of its f o r m e r master - a slight which cut Richard to the core. 1 2 The bleakness of the captive's m o o d seems t o have worsened, f o r the chronicler reports that, u p o n removal f r o m the Tower, " t h e lord Richard . . . was carried away on the Thames, in the silence of dark midnight, weeping and loudly lamenting that he had ever been b o r n " . 13 An a t t e n d a n t reminded him t h a t , in his turn, he had treated the Earl of Arundel m o s t spitefully. Like Adam of Usk, the Monk of Evesham makes n o direct c o m m e n t on Henry's consideration for his prisoner or lack of it. Yet he, t o o , relates certain details a b o u t the journey to L o n d o n that m u s t have h u r t Richard's pride. One thing the m o n k recounts is that the Earl o f Warwick (already permitted to return f r o m exile) came to Newcastle " w i t h a h a p p y f a c e " t o meet Henry and R i c h a r d . 1 4 Another circumstance t h a t must have been humiliating t o Richard is recorded by the m o n k in these words: "Nor in all these days was the king p e r m i t t e d to change his clothes, b u t always in one and the same garment he rode simply through all the aforesaid t o w n s . " 1 5 T h e m e n t i o n of Richard's garment evidently reminded the chronicler of the king's notoriously luxurious w a r d r o b e , for he digresses here to describe a certain tunic of Richard's, made of pearls a n d o t h e r precious gems a n d of gold in a special arrangement, valued at thirty t h o u s a n d marks. On the whole, Richard emerges f r o m the Lancastrian account of his captivity as a passive and submissive prisoner, concerned only with avoiding public shame; Adam of Usk alone mentions his lamentations.

12 Ibid., p. 196. 13 Ibid., pp. 191-192. 14 Monk of Evesham, p. 156. Evesham and the continuator of the Polychronicon (Harleian MS 2261) join Eulogium in saying Henry led Richard to London from Conway; but elsewhere in the Vita (p. 150) and also in the Vita appendix (p. 182) the monk says that Henry led Richard to London from Flint, is Monk of Evesham, p. 156. The towns in the order enumerated by Evesham are: Conway, Chester, Leicester, Nantwich, Newcastle, Stafford, Lichfield, Coventry, Daventry, Northampton, Dunstable, Saint Albans, London.

160

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

The Pre-Yorkist Sympathizers' Story of the Humiliation of Richard In the eyes of the majority of pro-Richard English and French chroniclers, Henry's treatment of Richard on the journey from Flint to London, except in a few isolated instances, was characterized by studied cruelty and mockery. The Annates account of considerate treatment is contradicted at almost every point in Traison, the major French record of this journey. 1 6 Whereas Annates specifically says that Henry forbade any insult to the regal dignity, Traison records that many of Henry's followers went into Flint Castle to look at the king while he was dining and said to the king's people: " 'Eat heartily and make good cheer, for, by Saint George, your heads will shortly be chopped off.' " 1 7 Also in direct contrast with the Annates representation of honorable treatment is the Traison picture of what seems to be deliberate mockery on Henry's part. After Richard, disguised as a priest, had entered the lower court of Flint Castle and conferred with his captor, the duke cried, "Bring out the king's horses." And there were led forth six poor horses, "certainly . . . not worth thirty francs". Mounted thus, the king and his companions rode to Chester. 18 Opposed to the Annales account of Henry's permitting Richard's friends to sup and spend the night with him at Chester is the statement in Traison that the duke refused the king's request for his friends' companionship. There follows a moving scene of Richard's farewell to his friends, with Carlisle clasping the leg of his liege lord, Salisbury the arm, and the king weeping and sorrowing so much that he was unable to speak. Moreover, in addition to depriving his captive of friends, the duke supplied in their place, according to Traison, the enemies of the king, the young Duke of Gloucester and the new Earl of Arundel, with the exhortation to them to "take the King who put your fathers to death unjustly" 19 and, with as many people as they thought proper, to guard him in Chester Castle, where he was kept imprisoned for two days. is Traison, pp. 209-215. 17 Ibid., p. 209. is Ibid., pp. 209-210. The poor horses were an especial insult to Richard because criminals were taken to the place of execution on poor horses. (See Creton, p. 172, note d.) 19 Traison, p. 210. Note the duplicity of Henry, who had helped prosecute the elder Arundel. (See above, pp. 84-85.)

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

161

By the side of the objective statement of the Saint Albans chronicle that Richard was guarded by a thousand men is the emotional language of the French narrative, with its implication of the duke's cruelty: after an attempted escape at Lichfield, the king was guarded "as strictly as a thief or a murderer". 20 The French story contradicts the Lancastrian statement that, as the party approached London, Henry took precautions to spare the king public exposure and shame by keeping his whereabouts as secret as possible. According to Trai'son, Henry not only failed to spare his prisoner public exposure but actually turned him over to the Londoners. It is true the chronicler notes that, as far back as at Coventry, Henry protected Richard from bodily harm when a deputation of London burgesses, on behalf of the commons of London and England, came that far to request the beheading of the king. But he makes the point that, at the next encounter with the Londoners, the duke showed no squeamishness about subjecting his victim to mental anguish and ignominy. The scene in Trai'son is as follows. About six miles out of London, the duke was met by the mayor and commons of London, who shouted: " 'Long live Henry the noble Duke of Lancaster, who has conquered all England in less than a month! such a lord deserves to be King.' " Duke Henry sent for Richard, who was brought before the crowd like a thief. Upon the approach of the king, Henry, alighting from his horse and taking off his bonnet, said to his captive: " 'My lord, alight; here are your good friends of London who are come to see you.' " His face covered with tears, Richard got off his little horse. Standing on the king's left, the duke said to the mayor and the people: " 'My lords and friends, here is King Richard; I deliver him into your custody, and beg you to do with him what you wish; and lo, my good cousins of Gloucester and Arundel are with you.' " 21 Then the mayor and the others led Richard to Westminster. It will be noted that the French chronicler has twice - at the beginning of the journey and at the end — pictured Henry's behavior as studied mockery of his sovereign, this effect being achieved by pointing the sharp contrast between the expected regal dignity and the actual wretched condition of Richard. Trai'son's account of how the king was led to the Tower continues to show Henry's mocking manner. Gloucester and Arundel mounted him on a small horse and 20 ibid., p. 211. 21 Ibid., pp. 213-214.

162

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND B U R I A L

led him through the streets of London, being careful to keep an open space around him so that everybody could get a clear view. An urchin pointed his finger at the king and cried, " 'Behold King Richard, who has done so much good to the kingdom of England.' " 2 2 True, some pitied him, comments the chronicler, but others were glad and cursed him and called him a bastard. The French chronicler joins Adam of Usk in describing Henry's creation of new knights in the hall of the Tower on the eve of his coronation. There were fifty-four of these, says Trai'son, including Henry's four sons, his two younger brothers, and the young Earl of Arundel, all of whom — dressed like priests — Henry paraded from the Tower to Westminster. Trai'son differs from most Lancastrian chronicles not only when depicting Henry's treatment of the captured king but also when describing Richard's behavior in the Tower. 2 3 The Lancastrians suggest a spineless creature, passively submissive, or, according to Usk, loudly lamenting. But Trai'son pictures Richard as disdainful, proud, and defiant, determined to the end to be a good and loyal knight. Upon one occasion, says the French writer, Henry, York, and Rutland visited the Tower and told Arundel to send Richard to them. But the king sent word that they must come to him, and they went. When they arrived in the king's presence, Henry, but not the other two, behaving respectfully, Richard at once accused York and Rutland of betraying him and expressed regret about his previous fondness for the latter. Rutland denied the charge of betrayal and threw down his bonnet. Richard thereupon kicked the gage several paces and said defiantly: " 'Traitor! I am King and thy lord, and will still continue King; and will be a greater lord than I ever was, in spite of all my enemies.' " 2 4 Then the king turned upon Henry and demanded to know why he was so closely guarded. The duke answered, that the council had ordered his confinement until the next meeting of parliament. Richard next asked to see his queen. The duke said the council had forbidden him to do so. Speechless with rage, Richard walked twenty-three paces without a word and then, denouncing his subjects as traitors, offered to prove his charge against" 'any four o f the best of you with my body, like a loyal knight as I am, and I never

22

Ibid., p. 215.

23 24

Ibid., pp. 216-218, 227-228. Ibid., pp. 216-217.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, A N D BURIAL

163

forfeited my knighthood' ". 2 S When the chronicler records this remark of the king's, he comments — as if fearing his readers would interpret Richard's challenge as an empty boast - that it is true the king was all his life a good and loyal knight. To the duke, trying to quiet his irate sovereign, the king said: " ' . . . for God's sake let me be brought t o t r i a l , . . . , that I may answer to all they would say against me' ",26 Trai'son puts into Henry's mouth an equivocal answer, that nothing unreasonable should be done to the king. Richard's attitude of defiance seems not to have changed from the early days of his confinement to the time when he was removed from the Tower. In the very last description the French chronicler gives of Richard in the Tower, the same pride, defiance, and insistence upon at least the accoutrements of knighthood still characterize him. In preparation for the king's departure, Henry sent him a black suit, a black horse, and black spurs. Richard sent word that he had never forfeited his knighthood, and he refused to stir without a knight's spurs. Upon receiving from Henry gilt spurs, a large horn, and a hunting spear, Richard was led in the guise of a forester to Gravesend, his guards being men of Kent, whom the captive described as the worst enemies he had. The Trai'son record of the parliamentary sentence decreeing Richard's removal f r o m the Tower is quite different from the Annates account of the same thing. In the French version, Henry himself demanded the sentence on the captive, and this took place on October 1 , 1 3 9 9 , on the second day of the parliament that deposed Richard and put Henry on the throne. Then the recorder of London said: "My Lords, it is ordered by all the prelates, by all the lords of the council, and by the commons of England, that John of Bordeaux, who has been called Richard King of England, be sentenced and condemned t o be imprisoned in a royal castle; that he have the best bread and the best meat that can be found for gold or silver; and, if any should raise war for his deliverance, he should be the first that should suffer death for that a t t e m p t . " 2 7 The final clause of this decree apparently occurs in no other early chronicle besides Trai'son.26 The chronicler comments that in this manner Richard was falsely sentenced. 25 26 27

¡bid., pp. 217-218. Ibid., p. 218. Ibid., pp. 222-223.

28

This clause does not occur in the Rolls o f Parliament. It is almost

164

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

In Creton's account of the journey from Flint to the T o w e r , 2 9 Henry's mockery of his captive is made a shade stronger than in Trai'son, f o r Creton accuses the duke,, when he called f o r the poor horses, of a deliberate intention to burlesque the ceremony of mounting the king. Only two little horses, not worth forty francs, were brought out, says Creton; the king mounted one, and Salisbury the other. The duke and his party, their instruments playing, marched triumphantly to Chester with their captives. Here the common people reverenced Henry and shouted after Richard "as it were in mockery". 3 0 Concerning the attempted escape at Lichfield, mentioned briefly by Trai'son,31 Creton gives vivid details. At night, he says, poor Richard let himself down into a garden through a window; but he was villainously thrust back into the tower at Lichfield Castle and afterwards was guarded all night by ten or twelve men, " w i t h o u t his being able to sleep". 3 2 When he describes the encounter with the Londoners a few miles outside the city, Creton chooses to drop the portrait - thus far common to him and the Traison author — of Henry's mocking behavior toward his captive and shifts his emphasis to the martyrdom of Richard. The king becomes the object, not of the duke's derision, but of his betrayal. The scene is pictured as follows. Two miles outside of London b o t h parties halted. Henry said to the commons: "Fair Sirs, behold your king! Consider what you will do with h i m ! " They answered: "We will have him taken to Westminster." 3 3 So Henry delivered the king to the people. Creton points out the parallel between the duke's words to the Londoners and Pilate's words to the Jews who would take our Lord. He then describes how Pilate proclaimed his innocence t o the Jews

tantamount to the death sentence, for, as the editor of Trai'son points out, it grants Richard life "only upon a contingency over which he could have no control". (See Traison, p. 223, n. 1.) 29 Créton, pp. 163-190. 30 Ibid., p. 173. 31 See above, p. 161. 32 [bid., pp. 175-176. It is interesting to note that, concerning Richard's imprisonment in the Tower (not in Lichfield Castle), the Saint-Denys historian says that the guards were ordered to turn night into day by making horrible noises so that Richard could not rest (Saint-Denys, II, 716-722). 33 Créton, p. 179.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

165

and concludes: "Much in the like manner did Duke Henry, when he gave up his rightful lord to the rabble of London, in order that, if they should put him to death, he might say, i am innocent of this deed.' " 34 The chronicler of Saint-Denys gives little space to the period of Richard's humiliation. 35 He does, however, give one piece of information not recorded in the other French chronicles; namely, how Henry explained to the French his imprisonment of the king. The duke sent word to the French that Richard had been incarcerated in the Tower for protection: his life would be menaced if he fell into the hands of the peasants and the bourgeois, who accused him of bloody outrages and tyranny and did not shame to call him bastard. In general, Froissart's narration of the events at Flint and on the journey to the Tower 3 6 agrees more nearly with the Lancastrian accounts than with those of the other French chroniclers. After the interview with Henry at Flint Castle, Froissart says, the king had his usual state with no change. Henry and Richard talked together on various subjects while the party was getting ready to leave the castle. It was at Flint, continues this chronicler, that the greyhound Math deserted Richard for the duke. The dog, accustomed to following only the king, nevertheless, when it saw Henry, ran to him, put its paws on his shoulders, and caressed him. When the duke asked the meaning of this action, Richard said he understood by it that the dog paid court to Henry " 'as king of England, which you will surely be, and I shall be deposed, for the natural instinct of the dog shows it to him' ". 3 7 Froissart's version of the dog story, it will be noted, is even more favorable to Henry than Adam of Usk's account of the same thing. 3 8 For Usk implies that the dog was vindictively presented to its master in the Tower (after its former desertion of Richard at Carmarthen, not Flint); and its second slight of the king was intended for Richard's humiliation; Froissart, on the other hand, does not imply that Henry planned to hurt Richard through the animal, and he seems to picture the king as accepting Math's action with equanimity and attributing it

34 35 36 37 38

ibid. Saint-Denys, II, 716-722. Froissart, II, 692-694. Ibid., p. 693. See above, p. 159.

166

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

to a fate over which neither king nor duke had control. About the ride from Flint to the Tower, Froissart says that Henry seemed considerate of Richard, rode by his side, and conversed with him. Fearing insurrection, the duke avoided large towns and castles and kept the open country road until he arrived at Windsor. Upon the request of Richard that he not be carried through London, the duke went on to Shene and then, during the night, led Richard and some of his knights to the Tower. Though Froissart takes the Lancastrian point of view in recording Henry's kindly treatment and Richard's equable spirit on the way to the Tower, he lessens the bias by leaving out items that, in the Lancastrian accounts, are strongly partisan, whether these items be considered in themselves pro-Henry or anti-Henry. For example, he omits the Lancastrian reports that Henry caused processions to be made for the king; that he granted his captive's friends the privilege of supping and sleeping with their sovereign; that he denied Richard permission to change his clothes throughout the trip; that fifty London citizens came to Chester to renounce their fealty to Richard; and that the Londoners, frustrated by failure to find the king in the Abbey, captured Walden, Slake, and de Selby in his stead. The French chronicler's history of this episode may be Lancastrian; but obviously it could be more highly colored with pro-Henry feeling than it is. Froissart alone records an odd scene between Henry and Richard in the Tower, apparently after the resignation and before the deposition. The chronicler portrays the duke in what seems to be a violent outburst of temper and puts into his mouth harsh words of slander and vituperation. As Froissart tells the story, Henry said he had a better right to the throne than Richard, for rumor had it, he said, that Richard was the son, not of the Black Prince, but of a priest or canon of Bordeaux. According to the rumor, the Princess Joan, noting that her husband was jealous of her conduct and that Edward III disliked her for not bearing a son to the Prince, had avoided divorce by having a son by one of the handsome French canons in her household. Richard's actions, the people said, so contrary to the gallant deeds of the Black Prince, confirmed their suspicions that he was this child of low birth. His love for the French gave further confirmation of his parentage. Also, Henry contended, the murder of Gloucester and Arundel for defending the honor of the kingdom proved that Richard had evil tendencies. The people would surely have killed the king, said Henry, if he had not prevented them. When Henry had finished his

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

167

derogatory remarks, Richard, seeing he must, humbled himself and begged that his life be spared. 3 9 Although, in the scene above, Froissart has agreed with the antiRicardian historians in picturing the king as submissive in captivity, yet the phrase "seeing he m u s t " differentiates Froissart's version of these events from the traditional Lancastrian one. Froissart uniquely records a final interview that Richard and Henry had in the Tower as late as January, 1400. 4 0 After Henry had heard of the uprising in Richard's favor led by Huntingdon, Kent, and others, he went to the Tower and reminded his prisoner that he had so far saved his life, with difficulty. But, if the deposed king, in return for this protection, had desired the murder of his successor and had had a hand in the recent uprising, things would end badly with him, Henry warned- Thus confronted, Richard denied any knowledge of the plot and said: " 'I never looked for any change in my situation, for I am perfectly contented with my present state.' " 4 1 Henry seems to have accepted Richard's innocence in connection with the revolt. The early Ricardian English chronicle Dieulacres has only two comments to make about the humiliation of the king: (1) that Henry's party, as they hastened through Chester and Chester County on to London, treated Richard like a captive servant; (2) that it is believed the duke's armorbearers wore the insignia of a greyhound as presage of the fact that Henry's "dogs" would destroy the "harts" of the royal household. 4 2 The Yorkists' View of the Treatment of Richard The Yorkist chroniclers 4 3 must have felt that Henry's treatment of Richard on the journey from Flint to London was not harsh enough 39 Froissart, II, 697. 40 Ibid., pp. 705-706. Other sources say that the king had been taken from the Tower before this time. (See, for example, Annates, p. 313, and Adam of Usk's Chronicon, p. 191, n. 1.) 41 Froissart, II, 706. 42 Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 173. Besides Dieulacres, another generally Ricardian English chronicle dealing briefly with this period is Kirkstall Chronicle, p. 134; it is not discussed here since it has no important contribution to make. 43 Most of the Yorkist chronicles, except Wavrin's, deal very briefly with this period. They are: A Short English Chronicle, p. 28; Hardyng's Chronicle, p. 356; the Croyland Chronicle, p. 354; and Davies' Chronicle, pp. 18, 21.

168

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

to constitute a stain on the duke's character, for they do not pick up from Richard's sympathizers the stories of Henry's mocking and cruel handling of his captive. In fact, none of the available Yorkist chronicles comments on the trip at all, 4 4 though several of them mention the removal of Richard from the Tower to various Lancastrian castles, Hardyng stating that the deposed king was led to Leeds Castle, to Pickering, to Knaresborough, and finally to Pontefract. 4 5 Wavrin alone among the Yorkists describes Richard's behavior in the Tower and Henry's contacts with him there. 4 6 By using as sources both Froissart's chronicle and Trai'son, Wavrin achieves a certain degree of impartiality; but on the whole perhaps he mildly favors Richard. From Froissart, he takes the account of the last meeting in the Tower between Henry and Richard, just after the revealing of the Huntingdon-Kent plot. Wavrin adds a few items: Henry entered the Tower by a rear door seldom used; he made no reverence to the king but advanced with great pride. When Richard disclaimed knowledge of the plot and pronounced himself satisfied with his present state, the matter died there, says the chronicler. From Trai'son, Wavrin takes the picture of Richard's defiance of his captor when he was sent black clothing in preparation for leaving the Tower. This scene took place, according to the later chronicler, the day after Henry had accepted Richard's denial of any connection with the Huntington-Kent uprising, not, as in Trai'son, after the parliamentary decree of perpetual imprisonment, back in October, 1399. The details of the scene in the Yorkist chronicle are a little different from those in Trai'son. Richard seemed a bit more perturbed by the prospect of the move; he perceived himself held for death, he said, since his guards were to be Kentishmen. Then he demanded, in place of the black clothing, "apparal fit for a good knight". Furnished by Henry with "a splendid dress and gilt spurs . . . and also a sword, a

44 The section of Wavrin's chronicle that covers Richard's reign has not been printed in the Rolls Series; since the manuscript of it is not readily available, no check has been made to find out whether or not Wavrin describes the journey from Flint to London. Details from Wavrin given below c o m e from the account of the reign of Henry IV. 45 Hardyng, p. 356. 46 Wavrin, pp. 4, 23-27.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

169

horn, and a boar-spear", 47 Richard was led through the city of London, says Wavrin, disguised as a forester, and finally to Pontefract. The Nonpartisans' Account of How Henry Treated thè Captive King In his account of Richard after Flint, 48 Caxton chooses to follow the Lancastrian Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), repeating the story of the mob's search at the Abbey and heightening somewhat their malicious intent toward the king. Caxton does not mention Henry's kindness, omitting from his source the statement that the captive was led secretly to London. Like the Brut, Caxton's brief narrative merely lists the removal from the Tower to Leeds to Pontefract. Fabyan is somewhat hostile to Richard and favorable to Henry in reporting this episode. 49 The chronicler says that the mob, before they were diverted to Westminster, where they seized Slake, had gathered in great numbers outside London in order to take Richard from his escort and slay him "for the great crueltie that he before tyme hadde vsed vnto the cytie". 50 Henry, on his part, took precautions to safeguard the king; just before the party escorting Richard reached London, the duke sent his captive secretly to the Tower for safekeeping. Fabyan follows Caxton and the Brut in his succinct note that Richard was taken from the Tower to Leeds to Pontefract.

C H R O N I C L E A C C O U N T S O F T H E D E A T H O F R I C H A R D II

In reporting how Richard met his death, the early chroniclers fall readily into four groups: (1) those who attribute death to grief or voluntary starvation; (2) those who attribute death to starvation by the prison keepers; (3) those who say Henry sent Sir Peter Exton to murder Richard; and (4) those who either plead ignorance of the cause or else record two or more theories for posterity to choose from. And, of course, there are a few writers who, like the compiler of the Great Chronicle of London, simply say that Richard died at Pontefract. 47

48

Ibid., pp. 26-27. Caxton, Hidgen sPolychronicon, VIII, 539.

"9

Fabyan, pp. 546, 565.

so

Ibid., p. 546.

170

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

The first group, those attributing death to voluntary starvation, is composed chiefly of Henry's partisans; but to it also belong the preYorkist English Ricardian monk of Dieulacres and the authors of two Yorkist chronicles. Oddly enough, the second group, those who believe the king was starved by his keepers, is also chiefly made up of writers usually favorable to Henry: Adam of Usk and the authors of two Lancastrian versions of the continuation of the Brut', to this group is added the Yorkist chronicler Hardyng, who is ambiguous but seems to believe that Richard died of enforced starvation. The chroniclers of group three, those unequivocally accusing Henry of murdering the deposed king through the medium of Sir Peter Exton, include only two historians, both French: the contemporary author of Trai'son and the Yorkist Wavrin. Group four, made up of writers who appear uncertain about Richard's death, includes pre-Yorkist English and French Ricardians — among them Creton and Froissart - and some Yorkists but, like group three, no Lancastrians; as might be expected, both nonpartisans, Caxton and Fabyan, belong to group four. Chronicles A ttributing the King's Death to Grief or Voluntary Starvation The Lancastrian chronicles which state that Richard died of grief or voluntary starvation are Annates, Historia Anglicana, Ypodigma, Otterbourne's Chronica, Evesham's Vita, the Polychronicon (Harleian MS 2261 ),Eulogium, and Gower's Cronica Tripertita.sl The author of Annales sets the pattern for this account and gives perhaps the most interesting version of it. He records that, when Richard had heard of the failure of the rising in his favor led by Huntingdon, Kent, Salisbury, and others, in January, 1400, it was said that he sank into such great sadness that he wished to destroy himself by fasting. He is said to have abstained from eating to such an extent that, the orifice of his stomach having been closed, 51 See Annales, pp. 330-331; Walsingham's Historia Anglicana, II, 245-246; Walsingham's Ypodigma, p. 390; Otterbourne's Chronica, pp. 228-229; the Monk of Evesham's Vita, p. 169; Polychronicon, VIII, 513; Eulogium, III, 387; Gower's Cronica Tripertita, Tercia Pars, lines 438-545, in The Complete Works, ed. Macauley, IV, 341.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

171

when he later wished to satisfy nature by having a meal, upon the advice of his friends, he was unable to eat, his desire for food having been altogether shut off; so that it came about that, his constitution having been debilitated, he became weak and died on Saint Valentine's Day at the aforesaid castle [Pontefract]. 52 One pre-Yorkist English chronicler - the author of Dieulacres Chronicle — and two Yorkist historians — the authors of Davies' Chronicle and Croyland Chronicle respectively - oddly join the Lancastrians in clearing Henry of murder by naming voluntary starvation as the cause of Richard's death. 53 The following statement in Dieulacres may be taken as representative of the point of view of this group: "The noble King Richard, wrongly deposed and kept by his perjured subjects in custody at Pontefract Castle, when he heard of the death of his kinsmen, sorrowed, it is said, even to death; having languished for twelve days without food and drink he commended his spirit to God on Saint Valentine's D a y . . . ." Chronicles Recording the Theory of Enforced Starvation by Prison Keepers The Lancastrian chronicles holding the theory of enforced starvation are: Adam of Usk's Chronicon, the Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), and the Continuation of the Brut (Harleian MS 53). Adam of Usk says that, when Richard heard his friends had fallen, "he grieved more sorely and mourned even to death, which came to him most miserably on the last day of February, as he lay in chains in the castle of Pontefract, tormented by Sir [Thomas] Swinford with starving fare". 54 It is to be noted that this is a unique mention of the name of the keeper who was personally responsible for starving Richard. The Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12) agrees with the Usk chronicle, adding the number of days that food was kept from the imprisoned king: . . for there he was enfammed vnto the deth be his keper, for

52 Annates, pp. 330-331. 53 See Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 174; Davies' Chronicle, p. 21; and Croyland Chronicle, p. 355. 54 Adam of Usk, pp. 198-199.

172

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

he was kept into iiij or v dayes fro mete and drynke; and so he made is ende yn this world" . s s The author of the Brut (Harleian MS 53) introduces the feature of diabolical torture. He says that, in the first year o f Henry IV, Richard was in Pontefract under the guardianship of Sir Robert Waterton, knight, "and there he was ich day servet [as] a Kyng aught to be, that he myght se it; but he myght come to non thereof; wherefor sone aftir he deyd for honger in prison in the same Castell; and so he made his ende". 5 6 Hardyng is the only Yorkist who expresses the belief that Richard was starved by his keepers. He simply says: "Men sayde forhungered he was & lapped in lede." S7 Chronicles Supporting the Story of the King's Murder by Sir Peter Ex ton The story of how Henry sent Sir Peter Exton to murder Richard appears for the first time in Trai'son. The author of Trai'son starts his ss The Brut, Part II, p. 360. 56 Ibid., p. 546. Robert Waterton is said by Adam of Usk (p. 174) to have been the first to come to Henry's aid when he invaded England. Waterton was at that time chief of Henry's Knaresborough foresters. 57 Hardyng, p. 357. The Harleian and Selden MSS of Hardyng's Chronicle have a prose addition including a copy of the challenge sent by the Percys to King Henry. In this, Henry is accused of causing Richard's death by exposing him to fifteen days and nights of hunger, thirst, and cold The excerpt from the challenge is as follows: " 'Item nos ponimus, dicimus et probare intendimus quod ubi tu nobis jurasti super eadem evangelia, eisdem tempore et loco, quod dominus noster et tuus rex Ricardus regnaret dum viveret in regalibus prerogativis suis. Tu ipsum dominum nostrum regem et tuum proditorie in castro tuo de Pountefreite sine consensu suo, seu judicio dominorum regni, per quindecim dies et tot noctes, quod horrendum est inter christianos audiri, fame, scitu, et frigore interfici fecisti et murdro periri, unde perjuratus es et falsus.' " (See Hardyng, p. 352, note.) The manifesto attributed to the Archbishop of York also accuses Henry of keeping the deposed king from meat and drink for fifteen days, but it adds "as it was popularly said". (See Henry Wharton, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691), II, Part II, 365.) The following writers of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (whose works are not taken up in this study) also maintain the theory of enforced starvation: Sir John Fortescue, Petrus de Ickham; the author of the Godstow Chronicle, Polydore Vergil, John Stow, and Holinshed, who gives all three theories but points out enforced starvation as generally believed.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

173

account some time before the murder occurred. A deputation of eleven persons, he says — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of York, the Earls of Arundel, Westmoreland, Northumberland, and Warwick, Sir Thomas Erpingham, Sir Harry Percy, and three men of London — besought Henry to remember what he had said the day before, that he wished to put Richard to death. Henry answered that he would not act in opposition to parliament, which had ordered perpetual imprisonment except in the event of an armed uprising for Richard. 5 8 On January 6, 1400, when the rebellion had taken place and Henry was waiting for his London army to gather, Warwick reminded the king that this disturbance would not have occurred if Henry had followed the advice of the commoners and killed Richard. Thereupon Henry said, " 'I promise you, if I encounter him with them now, either he or I shall die.' " 5 9 On this same day, January 6, when Henry had actually taken the field outside of London, he sent Sir Peter Exton "to go and deliver straightway from this world John of London, called Richard, for it behoved that the sentence of Parliament should be accomplished". 6 0 Traison gives the Exton story in great detail. When Sir Peter arrived at the prison - Gravesend Castle in Kent according to Traison — he found Richard seated at the table and, beckoning the esquire trenchant aside, told him he need no longer taste for the prisoner and if he chose he might let Richard eat alone, for he should never eat again. Upon Richard's commanding his esquire to carve and serve the meat, the servant replied that he was forbidden t o do so; then Richard, in a passion, seized a table knife, struck the esquire on the head, and said, " 'Cursed be Henry of Lancaster and t h o u ! ' " At this point Exton and seven men, each bearing a lance, entered the room. Richard pushed back the table and sprang into the midst of them, wresting an axe from one. Valiantly and vigorously he defended himself "like a good and loyal knight" and killed four men. Sir Peter leaped upon Richard's chair and waited, axe in hand, until the deposed king came near. When Richard was forced to retreat t o the chair, Exton smote him such a blow on the head that he fell backwards upon the ground. As the dying man cried out, " 'Lord, have mercy on m e ! ' " Sir Peter gave him another blow. The chronicler

58

Traison, pp. 230-231.

59 so

Ibid., p. 235. Ibid., p. 248. For the sentence of parliament referred to, see above, p. 163.

174

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

comments: "And thus died noble King Richard without confession, which was a great pity." Exton lamented his deed grievously and said he had lost his honor. 61 The one other chronicler to give only the Exton explanation of Richard's death is the Yorkist Wavrin.62 This chronicler sets the murder in Pontefract and tells the story generally as the author of Traison does. Wavrin adds the comment that this was a piteous murder and a great dishonor to the English who participated in it and authorized it. 61

Ibid., pp. 248-250. Benjamin Williams, editor of Traison, traces the Exton story to Créton^ As evidence, he refers to MS No. 8323, Reg., Bibliothèque du Roi, which contains Book IV of Froissart. This manuscript, says Williams, has an addition by the author who prepared it, saying that, since Froissart did not know how Richard died, he (the author of the manuscript) would explain: ". . . je fais savoir a tous, ainsi que j'ay este informe par homme digne de foy, nommé Creton, et par escript de sa propre main, lequel pour ce temps estoit en Angleterre . . . que le Roy Richard d'Angleterre fut occis et mis a mort en la tour de Londres". Then he tells the Exton story as it is given in Trai'son. (See Williams, Preface, Trai'son, pp. 1-li.) According to John Webb, editor of Créton's history, an interesting variation on the Exton story is suggested by an illumination on the first page of a small 10212 folio marked Codex Colb., 1961, in MS No. of the Bibliothèque du Roi JJD in Paris. This drawing represents Richard attacked at the table by three ruffians, one of whom is seizing him by the throat with one hand and with the other is stabbing him in the back. (See Webb, Introduction, "Translation of a French Metrical History. . , Archaeologia, XX, 11.) There has been much controversy over the probability of the Exton story and of Henry's responsibility for Richard's death. Interesting studies are the following: Williams, Preface, Traison, pp. 1-lxxvi, holding that the Exton story owes its origin to foreign malevolence and policy; Edward King in his "Sequel to the Observations on Ancient Castles", Archaeologia, VI, 315, describing how he and others at the opened t o m b of Richard in Westminster Abbey found no decisive signs of violence to the skull, and, in the same article, Archaeologia, VI , 311-314, holding that the room of Richard's imprisonment in Pontefract was formed in the thickness of the walls and was too small for such a death as described in Traison; John Webb, Appendix No. VII to Créton's history, Archaeologia, XX, 282-292, maintaining that Henry's failure to investigate Richard's death and his leaving the cause obscure must continue to be a stain on his memory; Thomas Amyot, " A n Inquiry Concerning the Death of Richard II", in two letters addressed to Henry Ellis, Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries of London, Archaeologia, XX, 424-442, concluding that Henry's guilt is not proved and the cause of Richard's death is an historic doubt. 62 Wavrin, pp. 36-39.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

175

It seems highly probable that Wavrin himself was convinced of Henry's responsibility in the death of Richard, for, in addition to giving the account of the Exton murder, he includes, in scattered passages throughout his chronicle, material that suggests the French held Henry culpable. As Wavrin tells the story, when Henry had imprisoned Richard in the Tower, he sent back to France the Lady de Coucy, who had been acting as companion to Richard's young queen. Lady de Coucy reported to her husband what had happened to Richard, and Lord de Coucy spread the story throughout the French court. The duke of Burgundy said that, if the British had imprisoned Richard, they would kill him. 6 3 The citizens of Bordeaux said that, since the Londoners had put Richard in prison and crowned Henry, they would kill Richard. 64 Later in his history Wavrin refers to a letter written to Henry by Louis de Valois, duke of Orleans and brother of Charles VI, in which the duke used the words "God knows by whose orders Richard was put to death". Wavrin records Henry's answer denying complicity in the death. The chronicler also mentions a letter to Henry from Walerand, Count de Saint Pol, threatening to revenge Richard's death. 65 In describing a meeting of the French parliament in Paris in 1410, Wavrin recalls that the Count of Tancarville referred at that time to Henry as the murderer of the former English king, saying that Richard proved to have been traitorously slain. 66 It is true that Wavrin does include one passage that pictures Henry as wanting Richard's imprisonment only, not his death. When Henry was warned that he would not be safe from revolt on the part of the 63

Ibid., p. 10. 64 Ibid., p. 12. Wavrin apparently takes this detail from Froissart. (See Froissart, II, 702.) 65 Wavrin, pp. 75, 79, 84. Wavrin apparently takes this material from Monstrelet. (See Enguerrand de Monstrelet, The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet; containing an Account of the Cruel Civil Wars between the Houses of Orleans and Burgundy; of the Possession of Paris and Normandy by the English; Their Expulsion Thence; and of Other Memorable Events That Happened in the Kingdom of France, as well as in Other Countries, trans. Thomas Johnes [London, 1853|, I, 19-23.) According to Wavrin, Saint Pol actually led a French army against the English as far as the Isle of Wight; here he was offered money by the islanders for protection and returned to France. (See Wavrin, pp. 95-96; also Monstrelet, I, 32.) 66 Wavrin p. 133.

176

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

French and other friends of the deposed king until Richard was dead, he replied that he would keep his promise of safety unless such an insurrection should take place. 67 Chronicles Marked by Indecision as to the Cause of Richard's Death No Lancastrians plead ignorance or uncertainty as to the cause of Richard's death. Four French chroniclers, however, — Creton, Froissart, the Monk of Saint-Denys, and Monstrelet - and one preYorkist English writer, the author of the Kirkstall Chronicle, are uncertain about the cause. Creton gives the theory of voluntary starvation as hearsay and then states that he himself believes that King Richard is alive and that Maudelain, his chaplain, has been buried in his stead. When Richard was told of the failure of the rising to restore him, he wept, according to Creton, and called on death to take him; then he became so vexed by the evil news that, according to popular report, he neither ate nor drank from that hour: and thus, as they say, it came to pass that he died. But, indeed, I do not believe it; for some declare for certain that he is still alive and well, shut up in their prison . . . although they caused a dead man to be openly carried through the city of London in such pomp and ceremony as becometh a deceased king, saying that it was the body of the deceased King R i c h a r d . . . . But I certainly do not believe that it was the old king; but I think it was Maudelain, his chaplain, who in face, size, height, and make, so exactly resembled him that every one firmly thought it was good King Richard. 68 Creton says that, if it were King Richard who was buried, he will pray for the welfare of the king's soul, and he then inserts an encomium on Richard, as follows: . . . in my opinion, he hated all manner of blame, and every vice. Never did I see anything in him save catholic faith and justice. I served him seven months . . . . And, certes, the only reason why he was deposed and betrayed, was because he loyally loved his father-in-law, the King of France, with a love as true and sincere as any man alive . . . although they charged him with having by his evil outrage 6T

Ibid., pp. 18-19.

68

Creton, pp. 218-221.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

177

caused the death of the dukes his uncles, and of being neither prudent nor wise [enough] to govern the realm. 69 Froissart, in reporting Richard's death, indicates that it occurred in the Tower and has only this to say about it: "I could not learn the particulars of it, nor how it happened, the day I wrote these chronicles." 70 However, scattered throughout his narrative, Froissart makes many other remarks about the death, the majority of them tending to inculpate Henry. When the deposed Archbishop of Canterbury went to Paris, at the request of the Londoners, to ask Henry to return to England and lead a rising against Richard, Henry answered in these words: "Should I accept of the offers and kind promises which you and my good friends the citizens of London make, I must subject myself to their will, arrest king Richard, and put him to death. For this I shall be universally blamed, and I would not willingly do so, if any other means could be adopted." 7 1 But, after getting the advice of the knights and squires with him in Paris, Henry decided that he would do whatever they advised, says Froissart. In other places, the chronicler records that the Duke of Burgundy and the people of Bordeaux believed Richard would be put to death, for they felt sure that, since the English had crowned Henry, Richard's death would follow. 72 Again, Froissart pictures the nobles and citizens of London as disputing among themselves whether or not Richard had already been put to death. In recording the impression that the death of Richard made on the people, Froissart says that this news had been expected for some time, "for it was well known he would never come out of the Tower alive". 73 Notwithstanding the fact that Froissart records these passages that seem to take for granted Henry's guilt, the chronicler also includes two incidents which make Henry seem less culpable. When Richard's enemies advised the execution of the deposed king, saying that, despite the outward goodwill and sincerity of the resignation, some 69 70 71 72 73

Ibid., pp. 221-222. Froissart, II, 708. Ibid., p. 685. Ibid., p. 7 0 1 , 7 0 2 . Ibid., p. 709.

178

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

might rise in Richard's favor, Henry answered that prison was punishment enough and that, anyway, he had promised Richard safety and would keep his promise unless he observed a change in the state of affairs or saw that the king of France or others were acting against him. Even after the Huntingdon uprising and upon noise of war preparations in France, when the council said that England could not have peace while Richard lived, Henry answered that he would not put Richard to death unless his complicity in the plot were proved. 7 4 After giving this answer to the council, says Froissart, Henry went off to feed his falcon — apparently an indication that he was impervious to further arguments. The Monk of Saint-Denys mentions two reports about the death of Richard: (1) after long suffering in the Tower, he died of hunger caused by fasting; (2) he was murdered by Exton upon Henry's order. 7 5 In telling the second story the historian gives much more detail than he accords the first. He comments that Henry had several times refused the demands of the Londoners for the death of Richard because he was unwilling to change the sentence of parliament for perpetual imprisonment. Finally, however, he acquiesced and, upon leaving London in order t o quell the uprising, sent Exton to murder Richard. The story unfolds substantially as in Trai'son. Monstrelet does not directly give any theory about the death, but he incorporates in his manuscript two letters f r o m French nobles which show that the French placed the responsibility upon Henry's shoulders. One of these letters, mentioned also by Wavrin, is dated March 26, 1402; it is a challenge from the Duke of Orleans to Henry, saying that the treaty between France and England and the friendship between Henry and Orleans had been broken by Henry's fault. In elaborating upon this "fault", Orleans uses the following expression: " 'the high and mighty prince king Richard, my nephew, and your liege lord lately deceased (God knows by whose orders)' " , 7 6 Monstrelet also includes Henry's answer: " . . . we know not with what intent this expression has been used; but if you mean, or dare to say, that his death was caused by our order or consent, it is false, and will be a falsehood every time you utter it; and 74 Ibid., pp. 707-708. As shown above, p. 167. Henry seemed convinced of Richard's innocence when he interviewed him in the Tower after the uprising. 75 Saint-Denys, II, 738, 740. 76 Monstrelet, I, 19.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

179

this we are ready to prove, through the grace of God, in personal combat".77 The chronicler says, however, t h a t Henry and Orleans never personally met t h e r e a f t e r . T h e second letter, this t o o being m e n t i o n e d by Wavrin, is a challenge f r o m the Count de Saint Pol to H e n r y , threatening t o harass Henry on land and sea b e y o n d the limits of France, in revenge for the death of Richard, " 'whose destruction you are notoriously accused of, and greatly blamed f o r ' " , 7 8 T h e only pre-Yorkist English chronicle to express d o u b t a b o u t how Richard died is the Kirkstall Chronicle. T h e author of this history pictures Queen Isabella as grieving over the misfortune of her husband shut u p alone in the castle of P o n t e f r a c t " a n d dead there, h o w God knew, a little a f t e r the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin [February 2 ] " . 7 9 T w o Yorkist chroniclers give more than one version of Richard's death — Capgrave, seeming to prefer e n f o r c e d starvation, and the a u t h o r of the L a m b e t h Brut, the E x t o n m u r d e r . In his Chronicle of England, Capgrave states objectively two theories: (1) ". . . as sum men sey, he peyned himself and deyed for h u n g i r " ; ( 2 ) " S u m m e othir seide that he was k e p t f r o mete and drink while a k n y t e r o d e to L o n d o n and cam a g e y n . " 8 0 Capgrave does n o t give a personal opinion about these theories; b u t , since later on in his history he records an incident that implies Henry's guilt, it may be concluded that he gave greater credence t o the idea of enforced starvation. T h e report was, says Capgrave, that Henry lay sad on his death bed. His confessor asked him t o d o penance f o r three things: having Richard p u t to death, having Archbishop Scrope p u t to death, and wrongly assuming the title to the crown. King Henry answered: " F o r t h e t o first poyntis, I w r o t e o n t o the Pope the veri t r e u t h of my consciens; and he sent me a bulle, with absulucion, and p e n a u n s assigned, whech I have fulfilled. And as f o r the third p o y n t , it is hard to sette r e m e d y ; for m y childirn will n o t suffir that the regalie go o u t e of o u r lynage." 8 1 77 78 7» 80 81

Ibid., p. 21. Ibid., p. 23. For Wavrin's use of these letters, see above, p. 175. Kirkstall Chronicle, p. 135. Capgrave, Chronicle of England, p. 276. Ibid., pp. 302-303.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

180

The Continuation o f the Brut ( L a m b e t h MS 8 4 ) is apparently the first chronicle in English to record the E x t o n murder. When Henry saw that the lords had assembled to put him to death and restore King Richard, says the chronicler, he "thoughte teschue such peryls. A n d a-none he commaunded Sir Pyers o f Exston, that he shulde g o o streyte t o Pounfreyte, and delyuer the worlde o f K y n g R y c h a r d . " T h e E x t o n muder is then told essentially as in Traison,

though in somewhat briefer

form.82 Then the continuator o f the Lambeth Brut reports a second theory — enforced starvation — giving less space to it than to the E x t o n story. The chronicler calls this theory the c o m m o n opinion o f Englishmen and records it as follows: " . . . [Richard] deyde and was f a m y n y d , and lakkyd bothe mete and drynke, and y e t he was dayle seruyd thereof lyke a K y n g , but he m y h t not towche yt, but only see hyt and therefor his [hunger] was the m o r e " . 8 3 So far, this account apparently f o l l o w s the Continuation o f the older Brut the Lambeth

continuator

(Harleina MS 53), but

adds a sweet little piece o f mysticism,

apparently unique in the chronicles. As Richard lay on his bed, it is said, he thought a fair woman came to him with kerchief full o f white roses and strewed them over his bed; he fed on the petals and was filled. When he awoke, his appetite seemed to be well-satisfied and so he lived a day or t w o more. 8 4 Finally the continuator o f the Lambeth Brut gives a third theory voluntary

-

starvation. This t o o is presented in less space than the

Exton story. It is recorded very much as in Annates. author o f the Brut

Some people, the

reports, say Richard was so angry and sorrowful

when he heard that Exeter and the others were dead that he swore he would never take meat again and " s o o a b o d e " four days without eating, "as they saye". Hearing o f this, Henry sent t w o prelates to c o m f o r t the deposed king. Richard confessed to one o f them, w h o told him that, for his penance, he should eat. But when he tried to take nourishment, the f o o d w o u l d not g o down because the conduits o f his b o d y had shrunk together, and so he died. 85 It will be noted that the author o f the Lambeth Brut records that his second

82 83 84 85

and third theories, enforced

The Brut, Part II, pp. 590-591. Ibid., pp. 591-592. Ibid., p. 592. Ibid.

starvation

and voluntary

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

181

starvation, are opinions of some people - a precaution he did not take in recording his first theory, murder by Exton. The two late Yorkist and early Tudor nonpartisans, Caxton and Fabyan, mention several theories of the death. In the first printing, 1480, of his addition to the Polychronicon, Caxton, who is apparently using the Lambeth Brut as his source, says Richard was starved by his keeper. In the 1482 edition, however, he omits this story and gives the other two theories, the Exton murder 8 6 and voluntary starvation. The 1482 edition gives the murder story in exactly the same words as those used by the Lambeth Brut. Then Caxton goes on to relate the theory of voluntary starvation as "the comyn oppynyon of Englysshmen", whereas the author of the Lambeth Brut attaches this phrase to the theory of enforced starvation. 87 There is little doubt that Caxton himself believed Henry guilty of Richard's murder, for later in the chronicle Caxton records, like Capgrave, that Henry had sent to Rome to be assoiled of deposing Richard and of making him die and that the Pope had imposed penances. 88 Fabyan says that the opinion of most writers is that Henry sent Sir Peter of Exton to murder Richard. He then records the Exton story, apparently from the Lambeth Brut and Caxton, but in a very much shortened form. However, continues Fabyan, other opinions of the death of Richard are left by writers, "as by way of famyne & other; 86 From this time on, through the sixteenth century, the Exton story becomes a popular one. Hall's Chronicle (p. 20) gives credence to the murder, as do J o h n Hay ward's History of Henry IV (p. 132), Daniel's Civil Wars (Bk. Ill, st. 55-81), and Shakespeare's RichardII (Act V, sc. v). Holinshed mentions the murder along with two other opinions. Perhaps the reason that Caxton, Fabyan, and a number of their successors favor this theory is twofold: (1) with the merging of the Lancastrian and Yorkist lines under the Tudors, chroniclers were freed from the obligation of partisanship and (2) the recency of the Exton murder story - it was first known to the English through the spread of the French chronicles in England during Edward IV's reign - commended it to historians. 87 Caxton, Higden's Polychronicon, VIII, 540-541. 88 Ibid., p. 556. The rest of this entry is interesting. The penances are given in detail - such as burning four tapers continuously on Richard's tomb, celebrating a weekly mass, and giving twenty pounds to the poor on every anniversary of Richard's death. Since Henry, whom God had touched as a leper, says Caxton, did not perform these penances, his son, Henry V, fulfilled these obligations for his father upon the removal of Richard's corpse to Westminster. (See Caxton, Higden's Polychronicon, VIII, 548, 556.)

182

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

but this [the Exton murder] of most wryters is testyfyed & allegid." 89 It seems probable that Fabyan too believed Henry guilty of the murder, for he too records the penances imposed by the Pope, though he refers to them as honors done to Richard by Henry V instead of as penances, and he does not mention Henry IV's confession to the Pope. 90

C H R O N I C L E ACCOUNTS O F T H E B U R I A L O F R I C H A R D II

In recording the burial of Richard, the chronicles fairly consistently follow the patterns set up by their schools without regard necessarily to the opinions they have given concerning the death. True, most of those who clear Henry of responsibility for Richard's death continue to favor the Lancastrian king by saying that he accorded solemn obsequies to his predecessor; but not all those who hold Henry responsible for the death of his prisoner blacken him further by denying that he paid honor to Richard's corpse. Perhaps the fact is that Henry, whatever the circumstances of the deposed king's death, was afraid to risk public disapproval by failing to provide proper solemnities for the royal funeral services. The Lancastrians' Version of the Burial In general, the Lancastrians say Richard's corpse was carried in procession, with the face open to public view, from Pontefract to London, but no description of the procession is given. In London, these chroniclers record, solemn church services were held; the burial itself, however, took place at Langley, with little pomp. Of the Lancastrian group, 91 the author of Annales gives the fullest account of the funeral proceedings. On the journey to London from Pontefract, he says, wherever the funeral cortège stopped to spend the 89 90

Fabyan, p. 568. Ibid., p. 577.

91 In addition to the Lancastrian chronicles treated below, others that give very similar accounts of the burial are the following: Walsingham's Ypodigma, pp. 391, 4 4 6 ; Otterbourne's Chronica, pp. 229, 274; the Continuation of Eulogium, in Eulogium, III, 387; and the Monk of Evesham's Vita, p. 169, and appendix to the Vita, p. 183.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

183

night, the body of Richard was shown, or "at least that part of the body by which he could be recognized, namely from the lowest part of the forehead to the throat". 9 2 At Saint Albans, the office for the dead was read. When the procession reached London, the body was taken t o Saint Paul's and funeral rites were held for two days, Henry attending the first day and certain nobles and citizens of London the second day. Then the corpse was borne at night to Langley, where it was interred, with the Abbot of Saint Albans officiating at Henry's order. 9 3 The chronicler comments: " A n d so without pomp, without more [ceremony], the regal body was consigned to burial." 9 4 Walsingham's Historia Anglicana makes clearer than Annates the unceremonious nature of the actual interment by commenting that Richard was buried without the presence of magnates or a crowd of people and that no one was invited to a meal after the labor of the burying. Later in the history, it is recorded that Henry V buried Richard regally in Westminster at great expense, confessing he owed as much veneration to Richard as to his own father. 9 5 A d a m of Usk's Chronicon notes the irony of the fate which decreed that Richard, who had vaingloriously prepared costly tombs for himself and his wives among the kings at Westminster Abbey, should thus be poorly buried in as obscure a place as Langley. 96 If the above chronicles can be taken as a loosely knit group, harmonizing in the account they give of the burial, then the two Lancastrian Continuations of the Brut (MSS Cambridge Kk I 12 and Harleian 53) and the Great Chronicle of London97 should be considered a separate grouping, recording the burial of Richard with somewhat different details f r o m those used by the historians already discussed. The earlier Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), representative of the three chronicles, says that Henry "lete sere hym yn the best maner that h e myzte, and closed h y m yn lynnyn cloth, all saue his visage". By torchlight the body of Richard was brought to Saint Paul's, where

92 Annates, p. 331. 93 It will be noted that Henry chose as officiating priest the abbot of a monastery always hostile to Richard. 94 Annates, p. 331. 95 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 246, 297. 96 Adam of Usk, p. 205. 97 See the Continuation of the Brut (MSS Cambridge Kk I 12), in the Brut, Part II, p. 360; the Continuation of the Brut (Harleian 53), in the Brut, Part II, p. 5 4 6 ; and the Great Chronicle of London, p. 83.

184

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

"he hadde his masse and his dirige, with moche reverence and solempnite of seruize". From Saint Paul's he was brought to Westminster Abbey, where the whole service was held again. Gower gives an independent account of the burial, making his words redound more to the glory of King Henry than the other writers do. Despite the fact that England rejoiced at Richard's death, the upright Henry, always prone to upright action, says Gower, For the worship of Christ gave his [Richard's] body to be buried In a solemn manner, although without the honor of praise. 98 The corpse was taken to Langley for burial rather than to any other place because everybody else refused to have it. In this manner, continues Gower, did Henry return to Richard good for evil. The Pre-Yorkist Sympathizers'

Description

of the Burial

On the whole, the pro-Richard chroniclers, in describing the burial, differ from the Lancastrian ones chiefly in the aspect of the funeral proceedings which they choose to emphasize. The Ricardians give specific and colorful details about the procession that escorted Richard's body from Pontefract and through the streets of London, while the pro-Henry writers give more space to the rites held at Saint Paul's and Westminster — a matter scarcely mentioned by the English and French sympathizers. Trai'son perhaps gives the fullest account of the burial. It records that the body was carried to Pontefract, presumably from Gravesend in K e n t , " and was buried there like that of a poor gentleman. Then, on March 12, the corpse was brought to Saint Paul's in the state of a gentleman. The litter was covered with a black cloth and ornamented with four banners, two bearing the arms of Saint George ana two, those of Saint Edward (Edward the Confessor, patron saint of Richard). Escorting the bier were a hundred men clothed in black, carrying torches; thirty men of London clothed in white, also carrying torches, went out to meet the corpse. The body was shown publicly at

98 Gower, Cronica Tripertita, Works, ed. Macaulay, IV, 341. 99

Torcia Pars, lines 4 5 3 4 5 4 , in The

The last place of Richard's incarceration mentioned by Traison.(See p. 163.)

Complete above,

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

185

Saint Paul's. No mention is made of the actual interment at Langley. 100 Froissart records that the funeral procession started out from the Tower of London, where, he says, Richard had died. The body was placed on a canopied black litter drawn by four black horses and conducted by two attendants in mourning; the bier was followed by four knights dressed in black. In this fashion the cortège paraded the streets of London until it reached the greatest thoroughfare, Cheapside, where it halted for two hours. While the body of Richard lay thus in state, with his head on a black cushion and his face uncovered, more than twenty thousand people came to see him. Some pitied him; others thought he had deserved his fate. The chronicler here comments on the fickleness of fortune, causing men to fall from high to low. Then he continues the description of the burial, saying that the funeral car, after the stop at Cheapside, proceeded in the same state to Langley, where interment took place. 1 0 1 Characteristically, Froissart goes on to give the reactions of people to the events. When Thomas Mowbray, the cause of all the trouble (by his foolish blabbing to King Richard about Hereford), heard the news of Richard's decease, he sickened, says the chronicler, became mentally disturbed, and died in Venice, where he was still in exile. Also the news of Richard's death greatly aggravated the illness of the French king. Such French knights and squires as desired war expected orders to attack the frontiers of English territory; but the councils of both kingdoms thought it wise to preserve peace between the two countries; so the truce was renewed for twenty-six years. 1 0 2 Créton, as shown above, 1 0 3 believed that Richard was still alive in the early months of 1400 but that Henry caused a dead man to be carried openly through the streets of London in the p o m p and ceremony becoming a deceased king. Henry claimed this corpse to be Richard's, says Créton, although it was probably that of Maudelain, former chaplain to Richard. 1 0 4 100 101

Trai'son, pp. 250-251, 261. Froissart, II, 708-709. 102 Ibid., pp. 709-710. 103 See above, p. 176. 104 Créton, pp. 220-221. Too brief to be of importance are the accounts of the burial in another French chronicle, Saint-Denys, II, 740, and in two preYorkist English chronicles - Kirkstall Chronicle, p. 135, and Dieulacres Chronicle, p. 174.

186

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH. AND BURIAL

The Yorkists' Report of the Burial Apparently the Yorkists, 10s generally alert to find fault with Henry's actions, accepted as true the pro-Henry version of the burial and saw little to criticize adversely in the funeral arrangements that Henry had made for Richard's corpse, for a number of them repeat the proHenry version of the burial without unfriendly comment. Hardyng gives the most elaborate account, apparently following in part the Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12) and making additions of his own. One purpose of the additions seems to be to glorify Richard by picturing his funeral services as being a little more ostentatious than the pro-Henry writers describe them as being. Another purpose apparently is to censure Henry for burying the deposed king in an obscure place where he would be forgotten. In March, Hardyng says, the corpse was brought in great solemnity from Pontefract to London, where a mass and dirge were held at Saint Paul's, the body lying in a hearse appropriate for royalty. Then Henry and certain lords offered eight or nine cloths of gold upon the hearse; they did the same thing at Westminster. It was here at Westminster, Hardyng comments, that men thought Richard should have been buried in his own tomb together with Queen Anne; but, instead, he was taken to Langley and interred secretly among the friars. 106 Later in his chronicle, Hardyng records that Henry V moved the body from Langley and buried it in royal array with Queen Anne, in the marble tomb at Westminster, as Richard had desired. 107 The Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle also records Henry V's reburial of Richard's corpse in Westminster Abbey. The chronicler says that Henry of Monmouth (Henry V) was far from approving the dethronement of king Richard and his being imprisoned for life, but looked upon all who were the promoters of his death as guilty of treason. By way of some atonement for his father's offence, he had his body transferred from Langley,

105 Other Yorkist chronicles, not discussed below, which follow either a Lancastrian or a Trai'son-Froissart version of the burial are the following: Capgrave's Chronicle, p. 276; Davies' Chronicle, p. 21; A Short English Chronicle, p. 28; Continuation of the Brut (Lambeth MS 84), in the Brut, Part II, p. 5 9 1 ; and Wavrin's Chronicles, pp. 39-40. 106 Hardyng, p. 357. 107 [bid., p. 372.

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH AND BURIAL

187

where he had been formerly buried, to London, and had him honorably interred at Westminster, near the shrine of Saint Edward. 108 The Nonpartisans' Record of the Burial In recording the burial, Caxton has chosen from his sources details that picture the splendor of Richard's funeral; Fabyan, details that portray Henry's proper arrangements for the funeral. After stating that the body was brought through London to Saint Paul's on March 12, Caxton follows almost word for word that portion of the Lambeth Brut description, based on Trai'son, that begins with the chariot of black and runs through the four banners, the hundred men, the thirty men, the visage lying open to convince unbelievers, and the burial at Langley. In his record of the first year of Henry V's reign, Caxton says Henry V had Richard brought to Westminster Abbey on a "ryal chare" covered with black velvet. The bier was surrounded by banners and burning torches and was drawn by horses draped in black cloth that bore various arms. Richard was buried by Queen Anne, where he had desired to be. 109 Fabyan's version of the funeral proceedings is similar to the first part of the Trai'son account, before Traison goes into the 'black chariot-one hundred men-thirty men' description. Fayban says the body was laid, open-visaged, in the minster at Pontefract Castle so that all could see Richard was dead. On March 12, the corpse was brought "with great solempnyte" through London to Saint Paul's, where again the body lay open-visaged in order to make manifest the death, which was doubtful to many, says the chronicler, especially to such as had been favored by the deposed king. Then Fabyan mentions the burial at Langley and adds that Henry V, in the first year of his reign, reburied Richard with great honor and solemnity in Westminster. Fabyan ends his account of Richard by quoting the epitaph on his tomb in Westminster. The first stanza is in Latin, which is translated by Fabyan into English; it praises Richard. The second stanza, in English, says that some blame must be attached to the deposed king

108 109

Croyland Chronicle, p. 364. Caxton, Higden's Polychronicon,

VIII, 541, 548.

188

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, A N D BURIAL

and that therefore his fate should be a warning to other rulers to remain in "vertuous constancy". 1 1 0

SUMMARY OF THE DIVERGENT

STORIES

OF RICHARD'S HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND

BURIAL

In death as in many facets of his life, King Richard remains a mystery. Poet and scholar of the sixteenth century, thumbing through the antique records, could have found only an intricate maze of complexities and contradictions as to how the king reacted to his treatment in captivity and how he finally died, reduced to the rank of a simple knight. The records favorable to Henry say (1) that Richard was treated with great reverence, being given the customary regal honors on the way to the Tower, the companionship of his friends, protection from the insolence of the mob, and finally safe imprisonment. (2) The attitude of Richard towards his captors, in return, was one of passive submissiveness. He showed good feeling toward Henry and pronounced himself perfectly content with his state in the Tower. The accounts favorable to Richard, however, give a completely different picture. ( l ) T h e y say that Richard was subjected to mockery, derision, and betrayal on the journey to the Tower, deprived of his friends, guarded by his worst enemies, jeered at by the Londoners, and granted safety only on the condition there was no uprising in his favor. (2) In the Tower, according to one chronicler, Richard lamented his fate and wept. According to another, he was disdainful, proud, and defiant; like a good knight, he offered to fight his enemies, and he demanded of Henry trial before parliament. Most historians record that Richard died in Pontefract Castle, though Froissart says it was in the Tower of London and the author of Traison, at Gravesend in Kent. But the manner of Richard's death is lost in the obscurity of contradictory reports by the chroniclers. Three theories about the death are advanced: (1) voluntary starvation, favored by Lancastrians; (2) enforced starvation, recorded by Lancastrians and a Yorkist; and (3) murder by Sir Peter Exton, introduced into literature through the pages of the French chronicle Traison. In addition, there is a large group of writers who are cautious about committing themselves on the subject of Richard's death. For i io

F a b y a n , pp. 5 6 8 - 5 6 9 , 5 7 7 .

T H E HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

189

instance, Creton, while mentioning voluntary starvation as hearsay, records that he did not believe Richard to be dead; Froissart says frankly he could not find out how the death took place; the author of the Lambeth Brut favors the Exton murder - indeed he is apparently the first English author to record it — but he calls enforced starvation the common opinion of Englishmen; Caxton also favors the Exton murder, but he gives voluntary starvation as the common opinion of Englishmen; to Fabyan, the Exton murder is the common belief of most writers, but he acknowledges several other points of view. Writers of the sixteenth century would find little disagreement among the early chronicles as to the manner of Richard's burial. There is general agreement that the visage of Richard lay open for public view and that solemn ceremonies were granted the corpse; but some historians mention only the church services, and others, only the pompous funeral procession. Wavrin gives the place of burial as "a village near Pontefract"; however, all other chroniclers say that the interment took place at Langley. Gower asserts that Langley was chosen because no other place would accept the body for burial; but the other historians imply that Henry chose this obscure village to make his subjects forget the deposed king. Researchers of the Renaissance period would have found in Froissart, more than in any other chronicler, a basis upon which to build an impartial account of Richard's last days, for Froissart is restrained in his judgment both of Henry and of Richard. While he joins the Lancastrians in picturing Henry's kindness toward the captive king on the way to the Tower, he also omits certain considerate acts mentioned by the Lancastrians; and he introduces a harsh and slanderous speech on Henry's part, reprimanding Richard for his offenses. Froissart shows Richard as cowardly, submissive, and content with his lot; but he excuses this behavior somewhat on the grounds of expediency and Richard's tendency toward fatalistic acceptance of his fortune. Froissart's is the only completely unbiased account of the death, since the chronicler simply says he could not find out how death came to the former king. Wavrin too, with a certain awkwardness, achieves some degree of impartiality, though the effect of his account of the humiliation and death is mildly Ricardian. In one scene, Wavrin shows the captive king as expressing satisfaction with his state; in another, as defiant and foreboding about the future. The death is given only in an anti-Henry version.

190

THE HUMILIATION, DEATH, AND BURIAL

Caxton and Fabyan attempt to be unbiased; neither of them mentions kindness to Richard on Henry's part; both convey the idea that Richard was much hated. Both present more than one theory of the death. An odd circumstance about Adam of Usk's Chronicon should be noted. Though its tone on the whole is violently hostile to Richard, it strangely becomes almost sympathetic to the fallen king in this episode; indeed Usk says his heart was moved at the sad plight of the prisoner in the Tower, who was weeping and lamenting his misfortunes. And in reporting Richard's death, the chronicler even says forthrightly that the king was starved to death by the keeper Henry had set over him. Though the records about Richard of Bordeaux are as contradictory in this episode as in all others, they describe the humiliation and death with less prejudice than they do the other controversial aspects of his career.

VII REPORTS OF THE KING'S BEING ALIVE IN SCOTLAND AFTER 1400

Since all the late fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century chroniclers, except Créton, record that Richard died early in 1400, those who mention any reports that he was living after that date must have regarded them as false, though only an occasional historian actually calls the rumor untrue. References to the rumor appear chiefly in the Lancastrian writings. Few of the chroniclers sympathetic toward Richard mention the report that he was still alive.

LANCASTRIAN ACCOUNTS OF THE RUMOR

The continuator of Eulogium gives the fullest account of the rumor. He notes at least a dozen distinguishable instances of the spread of the claim that Richard was alive, frequently in connection with conspiracies planned by supporters of Richard's cause. In 1402, the Eulogium chronicler reports, there was much dissatisfaction with Henry because, as the people said, he took their goods and did not pay. At this time, the friends of Richard received letters, as if from himself, saying he was alive. When the news was spread throughout the land, many rejoiced and wanted to restore the former king.1 Also for this year, 1402, Eulogium records great agitation among the Minorites, or Franciscan friars, in favor of the deposed king. The historian tells an interesting story concerning the loyalty of a Minorite priest of Aylesbury Convent who had been betrayed to Henry for rejoicing at the report that Richard was alive.2 The priest acknowledged his pleasure over the report and his affection for Richard, to 1 2

Eulogium, III, 389-390. Ibid, pp. 390-391.

192

REPORTS OF THE KING IN SCOTLAND AFTER 1400

whom he and all his family owed advancement, he said. Upon being pressed by Henry, he denied using the rumor for conspiratorial purposes but confessed that, if he had to take sides with Richard or Henry, he would fight for the former with his shepherd's stick and, if he conquered, would make Henry the duke of Lancaster. For this remark he was later beheaded, along with a second Brother Minor on whom letters of conspiracy were found. Another Minorite conspiracy, apparently originating in Leicester Abbey and being of far greater proportions than the one at Aylesbury, is recorded in the Continuation of Eulogium under the year 1402. 3 A Leicester Brother, says the chronicler, seeking mercy for himself, divulged a plot of fifty men — some religious and some secular — to gather on a field of Oxford, on the Vigil of Saint John the Baptist (June 23), in order to go in search of Richard. The informer and ten friends — presumably also friars of Leicester — had planned to join the fifty conspirators; men of other convents were involved also, but they fled. The accuser further revealed that an elderly Brother at Leicester, a master of theology, had quoted a prophecy that Richard should fight against Henry. The master of theology and eight of the ten accused Minorites were seized. When questioned, the eight Brothers, some of whom were unlettered, answered so incautiously that Henry pronounced them foolish. But the master confessed he had interpreted, according to his own idea, a prophecy of the canon of Brydlington. The dialogue that followed between Henry and the elderly religious is significant: [Henry]: " D o you say that King Richard is alive?" [Theologian]: "No, I do not say that he is alive, but I do say that if he is living he is the true King of England." [Henry]: "He resigned." [Theologian]: "He resigned, but unwilling and coerced in prison, which is no resignation according to law." [Henry]: "He resigned with good will." [Theologian]: "He would not have resigned if he had been free, and a resignation made in prison is not free." [Henry]: "He was deposed." [Theologian]: "While he was the king he was captured by force of arms, imprisoned, and spoiled of his kingdom, then you usurped the crown." [Henry]: "I did not usurp the crown, but I was duly elected." 3

Ibid., pp. 391-393.

REPORTS O F THE KING IN SCOTLAND AFTKR 1400

193

[Theologian]: "There is no election when the legitimate possessor is living; and if he is dead, he is dead through you; and if he is dead through you, you have lost the title and all right you could have to the Kingdom." 4 Henry was advised that the Brothers of Leicester must be put to death if the rumor of Richard's being alive was to be destroyed. Accordingly, the eight Brothers and the master were taken to Westminster for trial, says Eulogium, charged with the following: proclaiming falsely that Richard was alive and inciting people to seek him in Scotland; sending five hundred Scots to the plains of Oxford on the Vigil of Saint John the Baptist, to stand in readiness for seeking Richard; assigning as penance, to persons confessing their sins, the task of seeking Richard in Wales; and collecting money for Owen Glendower, the traitor who desired to come and destroy the English tongue, continues Eulogium.5 T w o juries, one from London and one from Holborn, refused to condemn the friars; but finally a jury from Islington and Highgate found them guilty, and they were hanged and beheaded. Later members of the condemning jury apologized to the Leicester Brothers for having passed sentence of execution on some of their number. Along with the friars were tried Sir Roger Clarendon, the illegitimate brother of Richard, and the Prior of Launde, both of whom confessed that they had had letters from the deposed king. In this same year, 1402, two other Brothers Minor from Leicester were beheaded on the same charges as the earlier ones; and a woman accused a Minorite of Canterbury Convent, but she dropped the case. Still under the year 1402, the continuator of Eulogium records a message from the king of Scotland to the king of France, to the effect that a certain person had come into Scotland and two Jacobite (Dominican) friars had said that he was King Richard. The rumor grew, notes the Eulogium historian, and so it was said that Richard was in Scotland. 6 In covering the events of 1403, the Eulogium writer mentions the Percy rebellion, stating that " H o t s p u r " (Henry Percy, the younger), along with the Earl of Worcester (Thomas Percy, uncle of Hotspur), rose against Henry and proclaimed that he knew now Henry would 4 s 6

Ibid., pp. 391-392. Ibid., pp. 392-393. Ibid., pp. 389-394.

194

R E P O R T S O r T H E KING IN S C O T L A N D A F T E R 1400

rule worse than Richard and therefore he wanted to correct his error of having favored the former and opposed the latter. Oddly, n o direct reference is made t o the report of the Percys, recorded by other chroniclers, that Richard was alive and was with their army. 7 Also in 1403, according to this chronicler, there came to parliament letters as if sent f r o m Richard, stupefying the whole parliament and the king. Henry summoned Richard's jailer, w h o offered to fight a duel with anyone asserting Richard was still alive. 8 In 1404, as the rumor of Richard's being alive in Scotland in Albion Castle continued to grow, reports the author of the Eulogium Continuation, a certain man came to the Countess of Oxford (mother of Robert de Vere, early favorite of Richard) and told her that the former king was alive, at which news she rejoiced. Then, says the chronicler, she was put into the Tower of London. The Abbots of Saint Osith and of Colchester were also accused of conspiracy but bought grace of Henry. 9 The final reference to rumors about Richard in the Continuation of Eulogium, which stops at 1413, concern one John (William) Serle, called here the slayer of the Duke of Gloucester. Serle, after he had been captured in Scotland, in 1404, confessed that he had stolen Richard's signet ring when the king surrendered in Wales and had sent letters sealed with it to the friends of Richard, saying he was alive. Serle stated also that there was in Scotland a person similar to Richard, but it was not Richard. Nevertheless, the rumors of the deposed king's being alive did not grow quiet, reports the historian, for the Scotsmen augmented them. 1 0 i 8

[bid., p. 396. See below, p. 195. Ibid., p . 4 0 0 .

9

ibid., pp. 401-402.

10

Ibid., pp. 4 0 2 - 4 0 3 . T h o m a s A m y o t identifies t h e i m p o s t o r in Scotland, e n c o u r a g e d by Serle, as T h o m a s Warde of T r u m p i n g t o n ; A m y o t gives as evidence a p r o c l a m a t i o n in T . R y m e r ' s Foedera, VIII, 3 5 3 , saying t h a t Serle and A m y e D o n e t were excepted f r o m an act of grace, along with T h o m a s Warde, " q u e se p r e t e n d e et feigne d'estre Roy R i c h a r d " . (See T h o m a s A m y o t , " A n Inquiry Concerning t h e Death of Richard I I " , Archaeologia, XX, 4 2 6 - 4 2 7 , n o t e c.) It is interesting to note t h a t Wavrin, p. 33, records t h a t Maudelain, Richard's chaplain, w h o , according to C r é t o n , resembled King Richard exactly (see above, p. 176), escaped t o Scotland a f t e r t h e suppression of the H u n t i n g d o n uprising of J a n u a r y , 1400, and might presumably have been the p e r s o n Serle was speaking o f .

REPORTS OF THE KING IN SCOTLAND AFTER 1400

195

The Saint Albans record of these rumors, though essentially like the account in Eulogium, can be clearly distinguished f r o m the latter by the inclusion of certain additional materials: for example, a priest of Ware's defection, attached t o an account of the Prior of Launde; a claim b y the Percys that Richard was still alive; the Countess of O x f o r d ' s distribution of silver and gold harts as insignia in her conspiracy for the release of Richard; and Oldcastle's defiance of parliament. Historia Anglicana, the m a j o r Saint Albans chronicle for these r u m o r s , 1 1 maintains t h a t the Percys, during their uprising in 1403, published t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y that Richard, in whose name they made w a r against Henry, was alive and with t h e m ; anyone wishing to see him, they said, should come armed t o Chester Castle. Walsingham c o m m e n t s that the a n n o u n c e m e n t , though false, caused a great n u m b e r of persons to hesitate as to which side they should choose, since m a n y , especially those benefited b y Richard, leaned toward the deposed king. 1 2 Historia also reports that, in 1417, Sir J o h n Oldcastle, on trial for his life b e f o r e the members of parliament, when asked to show reason w h y he ought n o t to die, answered i m p u d e n t l y that he did not have a judge a m o n g t h e m , his liege lord, Richard, being alive in S c o t l a n d . 1 3

u Historia Anglicana, II, 248-250, 256, 262-264, 276, 328. The less important Lancastrian chronicles for the "being alive" rumors follow either Historia or Eulogium as sources. Those using Historia are the following: Walsingham's Ypodigma, pp. 393-394, 399, 406-408, 421, 485-486; Annates, pp. 339-341, 363, 391; Otterbourne's Chronica, pp. 233-234, 240-241, 249, 260-261; the Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in the Brut, Part II, pp. 360, 365-366; and the Continuation of the Brut (Harleian MS 53), in the Brut, Part II, p. 546. Those that can be classified as following Eulogium are: Adam of Usk's Chronicon, p. 255; the Monk of Evesham's Vita, p. 179; the Continuation of the Polychronicon (Harleian MS 2261), in Polychronicon, VIII, 517. 12 Historia Anglicana, II, 256. In 1406, Sir Henry Percy, the elder (earl of Northumberland) still maintained the possibility of Richard's being alive, saying he had levied war against Henry to support the quarrel of his lord King Richard, if he was alive, and to avenge his death if he was dead. (See the Rolls of Parliament, viii, 605, as quoted by John Lingard in A History of England, 2d ed. (London, 18231, IV, 404-405, n.47.) HowevcT, three years before in the challenge to Henry, the Percys had accused him of murdering Richard. (See above, p. 172, n. 57.) 13 Historia Anglicana, II, 328.

196

REPORTS OF THE KING IN SCOTLAND AFTER 1400

T H F P R E - Y O R K I S T S Y M P A T H I Z E R S ' VIEW O F T H E R U M O R S

Only three of the sympathetic English and French chroniclers indicate any awareness of the popular belief that Richard was not yet dead. Creton, as said above, unequivocally states it to be his belief that Richard was still alive and that Henry, through trickery, had caused a substitute corpse to be exhibited and buried. 1 4 Dieulacres Chronicle refers to the Percys' report that Richard was alive. The Percys pretended, says the chronicler, that the former king would come, accompanied by the Earl of Northumberland and a great army, and the people could see him. But Richard did not appear. Then it was said he could be seen at another place, but he did not appear there either. 1 5 The author of Trai'son, who indicates that Richard was murdered in early January, 1400, does not record any report of his being alive later; but the chronicler surely implies that Maudelain thought the deposed king alive in February, 1400. For, when Maudelain was beheaded on February 4 for his participation in the SalisburyHuntingdon uprising, he said, according to Trai'son: " 'I die this night in the service of my sovereign lord the noble King Richard' ", without the addition of the customary formula for the dead, "on whose soul may God have mercy". 1 6

T H E Y O R K I S T S ' AND T H E N O N P A R T I S A N S ' R E C O R D S O F T H E RUMORS

Among the Yorkist chronicles, only two give considerable space to the rumors that Richard was still living. These are Davies' Chronicle, which generally follows the Eulogium version of what the Lancastrians say about Richard's being alive, and Capgrave's Chronicle of 14 Creton, pp. 219-220. See above, p. 176. More elaborate discussion of the hypothesis that Richard escaped to Scotland can be found in Benjamin Williams, Preface, Traison, pp. lii-lxi, and in Thomas Amyot, " A Reply to Mr. Tytler's 'Historical Remarks on the Death of Richard the Second' ", Archaeologia, XXIII, 277-296. 15 Dieulacres Chronicle, pp. 177-178. It will be noted that the author of this portion of Dieulacres is different from the one who recorded Richard's reign and is pro-Henry in outlook. (See below, Appendix A, p. 229.) 16 Trai'son, p. 260.

REPORTS OF THE KING IN SCOTLAND AFTER 1 4 0 0

197

England, which for the most part follows the Saint Albans account. The Brut (Lambeth MS 84) states that many in England and abroad said Richard was alive many years later. 17 The nonpartisan historians, Caxton 18 and Fabyan, 19 mention briefly the punishment of certain supporters of Richard. Both historians, following Historia, note the hanging of Clarendon and his two men; and both join Eulogium in mentioning the execution of the Prior of Launde along with that of the eight Minorites. Caxton and Fabyan are almost identical here, except that the latter distinguishes the eight friars by stating that some of them were "bachelers of dyuynyte", a detail which Fabyan may have adapted from Adam of Usk's "doctors in theology". This is all the two nonpartisan chroniclers choose to repeat from the wealth of material provided by Historia and Eulogium.

SUMMARY OF THE DIVERGENT ACCOUNTS OF RICHARD'S BEING ALIVE AFTER

1400

Apparently all the writers who give reports of Richard's being alive considered them no more than false rumors — that is, all except Creton, who staunchly maintained that Richard was alive. The persistence of the "being alive" rumor, whether fictional or not, from 1402 to the time of Sir John Oldcastle's trial, in 1417, must have made no less confusing the task of the sixteenth-century writers who were trying to discover in chronicle literature the truth about Richard II.

17 See Davies' Chronicle, pp. 23-26, 28-30; Capgrave's Chronicle of England, pp. 2 7 8 , 285-287; and the Brut (Lambeth MS 84), in the Brut, Part II, p. 591. One other Yorkist chronicle that makes brief mention of a conspiracy by Richard's supporters after 1400 is Croyland Chronicle, p. 356. 18 Caxton, Higden s Polychronicon, VIII, 5 4 1 - 5 4 2 . 1« Fabyan, p. 569.

VIII REFLECTION IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY LITERATURE OF EARLY CHRONICLE AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE REIGN OF RICHARD II

It has been the immediate purpose of this book to show the contradictory nature of the material that lies behind the Renaissance portrayals of King Richard and his times. In conclusion, specific illustrations will be given of how the complexity of the sources is reflected in the sixteenth-century image of the king and of those who played leading roles in the drama of his reign. The ambiguity of the early chronicles can frequently be seen in Holinshed, for example. "Diuerse have written diuerslie", says this historian early in his account of the Peasants' Revolt. 1 He then proceeds to state that, according to some writers, the chief captain of the rebels was John Tiler, who named himself Jack Straw (apparently to be incognito). But other authorities affirm, says Holinshed, that the leader of the peasants was Thomas Baker of Fobbings. A little farther on in his narrative, in summarizing the names of those who led the Uprising, the chronicler lists Wat Tiler, along with Jack Straw and others, but omits Thomas Baker at this point. Behind this rather confusing attempt to identify the real captain of the rebels at Smithfield lie contradictory accounts of the early chronicles. The continuator of Knighton says it was Wat Tiler, who changed his name to Jack Straw. Though most early histories refer to the rebel chief murdered at Smithfield as Wat Tyler, nevertheless Adam of Usk's Chronicon, the Brut, the Great Chronicle of London, A Short English Chronicle, and Hardyng's Chronicle, for example, name this person Jack Straw. 2 Neither does Holinshed attempt to reconcile the contradictory accounts he found in his sources about the Thames episode. He records both that the king did not grant the request of the peasants to 1 Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (London, 1807), 11,735. 2 See above, p. 15, n. 8; pp. 26-27.

REFLECTION OF AMBIGUITY ABOUT RICHARD II

199

confer with them on the banks of the Thames and also that, according to another source, the king did sail down the river and talk to the rebels. The first account Holinshed could have found in Historia Anglicana; the second could have come from the Anonimalle Chronicle or from Froissart. 3 The ambiguity of the early histories is also reflected in Holinshed's two-fold story of the incident that led to the murder of the rebel chieftain at Smithfield. Following Walsingham,4 the chronicler presents the narrative of Tyler's insolence to Sir John Newton and of William Walworth's advice that Richard should have the fellow arrested. After this, Holinshed comments: "In the report of this commotion chronographers doo somewhat varie, as by this present extract out of Henrie Knighton canon of Leicester abbeie, liuing at the time of this tumult may appeare." 5 He then proceeds to retell the story of the murder as the continuator of Knighton gives it. According to this version, Jack Straw threatened Richard and seized the bridle of the king's horse; thereupon, John (William) Walworth stabbed Straw in the throat. 6 The complexity of the chronicle sources is reflected in sixteenthcentury literature in other ways than by the simple juxtapostion of unharmonized accounts. Occasionally there appear, in Renaissance poetry and drama, character portraits, composed by men living and writing at approximately the same time, that give very different representations of the same figure. For instance, Samuel Daniel, in his Civil Wars (behind which probably lies Froissart's Chronicles),1 describes Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, as a proud, turbulent, ambitious individual who could not easily live under the rule of anyone: A man, for action violently bent, And of a spirit averse, and ouer-thwart; Which could not sute a peace-full gouernment: 3 °> s

Holinshed's Chronicles, II, 737. (See above, pp. 14, 21, 24.) See above, p. 15. Holinshed's Chronicles, II, 742. Besides Holinshed, a sixteenth-century play, The Life and Death of Jack Straw, Act III, lines 898-976, is apparently based on Walsingham's story of Tyler's insolence to Newton. (See The l.ife and Death of Jack Straw, 1594, The Malone Society Reprints [Oxford, 19571.) 6 See above, p. 15, n. 10. 7 See above, pp. 91-93.

200

R E F L E C T I O N O F AMBIGUITY ABOUT R I C H A R D II

Whose euer-swelling, and tumultuous heart Wrought his own ill and others discontent. 8 Daniel also calls Gloucester the leader of a group determined to use arms against Richard's government (he does not mention the Nottingham decisions as provocation to the duke's party); he states that, in the "Merciless Parliament", many worthy men met their death "without all forme, or any course of Right", and he names Gloucester the fatal cause of the evils to come. 9 On the other hand, the anonymous author of the play known as Woodstock, taking a suggestion from the Saint Albans chronicles perhaps, 1 0 pictures the duke as a true patriot, the type of the virtuous Englishman, concerned only for the welfare of his country. Although the duke is shown as reprimanding Richard on account of his licentious friends, his luxury and vanity, and his acts of oppression, at the same time he is made to look upon the king as "God's great deputy". Quite unlike Daniel, the anonymous playwright describes Gloucester as a patient respecter of divine right, a simple, blunt man without affectation, often referred to as "plain Thomas". 1 1 Since both these portrayals of Gloucester are based on fourteenthand fifteenth-century chronicles available to men of letters in the sixteenth century, the question of why the poet chose to present one portrait and the playwright, an entirely different one, becomes a problem for the literary historian. The complexity of the early histories is also plainly reflected in the contradictory sixteenth-century presentations of how King Richard was actually captured in August, 1399. Here again the narrative of the poet Daniel disagrees with the story told by a playwright, this time Shakespeare himself. The version of the capture given by Daniel is in essence as follows. Leaving at Milford under the command of Albemarle the troops he had brought back from Ireland, Richard went to Conway in expecta8 Samuel Daniel, The Civil Wars, Bk. I, st. 26, lines 1-6, ed. Laurence Michel (New Haven, 1958), p. 78. 9 Ibid., Bk. I, st. 34, lines 6 - 8 ; st. 37, lines 1-2; st. 4 2 , lines 1-4, ed. Michel, pp. 79-82. 10 See above, p . 7 4 , for an example of t h e Saint Albans delineation of Gloucester. 11 Woodstock, ed. A.P. Rossiter, Act III, sc. ii, lines 108-109; IV, ii, 144; III, ii, 112-113; IV, ii, 1 4 8 - 1 4 9 ; ! , ii, 15; I, iii, 16; IV, ii, 75, 151; V, i, 55.

201

R E F L E C T I O N O F AMBIGUITY A B O U T R I C H A R D II

tion of joining the Earl of Salisbury and the army of Welshmen the earl had been sent to collect. But, finding that the soldiers had dispersed in the belief that the king's delay in arriving meant his death. Richard tried to gain new adherents at Conway. Failing in this attempt and hearing that the army at Milford had disbanded, too (after Percy had broken his staff of office), the king began to philosophize, reflecting that the multitude would not better its fortunes by a change of kings, that his flatterers had brought him to his ruin and deprived him of all but the shadow of power. At this juncture, Northumberland was sent to Conway by Bolingbroke to offer the following terms: if the king would restore Henry's inheritance, would call parliament, and would punish the murderers of Gloucester and those who were now giving Richard bad advice, then Henry would sue for pardon and swear allegiance to his king. Richard asked advice from the few supporters who still remained with him — that is, Salisbury, Carlisle, Ferriby, Stephen Scrope, Sir Peter Leighs Auncitor of Lime in Cheshire, and Jenico d'Artois. Salisbury, distrusting Northumberland and believing that Henry had really come to seize the throne and was only trying to entice Richard away from safety, advised that the king stay secure in Conway Castle until the intruder's followers should desert him. But Richard preferred the counsel of Carlisle, who, believing the words of Northumberland, advised that the king accompany the earl to Flint, where he could confer with Henry. On the road from Conway to Flint, at a narrow pass between the ocean and a cliff, Northumberland's troops captured the king by ambush. At the conference at Flint, Henry apologized that he had had to use force to seek his rights. Richard (knowing full well that Bolingbroke intended his deposition) said those rights were granted and prayed Henry's army would not beget greater injuries for England. 12 Thereupon, he was taken to London as a prisoner. The whole account as given by Daniel, though taken directly from Holinshed, must surely have been based eventually on Creton. 13 Shakespeare's story of the capture, as told in Richard II, Act III, sc. ii-iii, is quite different from Daniel's. The king did not go to Conway, according to Shakespeare, but to Barkloughly Castle (probably Harlech). Here he heard of the disbanding of both Salis12 Daniel, Civil Wars, Bk. 1, st. 104-108; pp. 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; 101-115. 13 See above, pp. 132-140.

Bk. II,

st. 1-60,

ed.

Michel,

202

REFLECTION O F AMBIGUITY ABOUT RICHARD II

bury's and York's forces, and his mood changed rapidly from overweening confidence to extravagant and sentimental despair, as he was first encouraged by the words of his friends and his own sense of divine appointment and then discouraged by the report of the series of misfortunes. Finally, overwhelmed by the news of Bushy, Green, and Wiltshire's fate and by the defection of York, he gave orders for the dismissal of whatever forces he had left and retired to Flint Castle to lament his misfortunes. So, far from being taken by ambush on the way to Flint, as Daniel has it, Richard, according to Shakespeare, arrived at Flint a free man. Here Henry, instead of speaking of force, as in Daniel, sent to Richard a courteous request for his rights and a pledge of allegiance. And Richard, instead of expressing fear of injury, pronounced himself content to yield his crown and lapsed into a sentimental reverie on how he must swap his kingdom for "a little little grave, an obscure grave". Even when Henry himself knelt before the king and reiterated that he had come only for his rights, Richard insinuated that he knew his cousin desired the crown and he was willing to relinquish it, for, he said, one must do what force will have him do. This complex presentation of the capture of Richard can be attributed to Shakespeare's dependence upon differing sources, as well as to the playwright's own inventiveness. Likely enough it was the use of Froissart as a source that led Shakespeare to omit the journey to Conway and the proceedings there, for the French chronicler, making no mention of Conway, says that Richard went directly to Flint. 14 However, Shakespeare may have been influenced, not by any early chronicle, but by a marginal note in Holinshed, which — apparently by error — says that the king stole away to Flint, though the text of Holinshed records that Richard went to Conway. After following Froissart, Shakespeare apparently turned to Creton, through Holinshed, for the name of Northumberland as messenger from Henry — a fact not given by Froissart. Creton also furnishes the source for the heaping up of troubles on all sides; and both Creton and Traison picture Richard as a martyr king betrayed by his subjects; Creton especially records the king's lamentation and selfpity. 15

14 is

See above, pp. 144-145. See above, pp. 134-135, 138-141, 161, 164-165.

REFLECTION OF AMBIGUITY ABOUT RICHARD II

203

But in picturing the submission of the king, Shakespeare, disregarding the French chronicles, gives an account that borders on the Lancastrian story, 1 6 though in a Flint (not Conway) setting. Since Shakespeare presumably did not know Annales and the other Saint Albans histories, 1 7 he must have borrowed here from unknown sources, if he borrowed at all. But again he may have taken a hint from Holinshed, who, after recording the French version of ambushing, adds: "Some write . . . t h a t . . . the king offered, in consideration of his insufficiencie to gouerne, freelie to resigne the crowne, and his kinglie title to the same, vnto the duke of Hereford."18 These examples are perhaps sufficient to indicate how it is that the art of Shakespeare and other sixteenth-century poets and historians — that is, the framework of chauvinistic and artistic purpose within which they rejected some sources and accepted others - can best be studied when one understands the complexity of the portrait of Richard II contained in the late fourteenth- and fifteenth-century chronicles, upon which all the Renaissance accounts eventually depend.

16 17 New is

See above, pp. 119-120. Matthew W. Black (ed.), The Life and Death of King Richard the Second, A Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, p. 186, note to III, ii, 52-60. Holinshed's Chronicle, II, 857-858.

APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF CHRONICLE SOURCES

The primary purpose of this appendix is to establish the degree of authenticity that can be attributed to each of the chronicles used in this book as a source, to indicate its political bias, and to suggest its importance for the reign of Richard II. In the interest of clarity and of general helpfulness to the student who will himself examine the chronicle literature of the late fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, additional material has sometimes been included. The late fourteenth- and the fifteenth-century chronicles, written in England or France, that are the sources of the complex picture of Richard II presented in this book can not be looked upon as altogether objective records of facts judiciously weighed. They are often, on the contrary, highly subjective, sometimes emotional, narratives based on material selected or presented with a strong political bias. Many of the chroniclers were monks; and it was the expected thing that they should favor the great noblemen and princes who had endowed the monastic houses to which the authors belonged. Also, generally speaking, it was safer to support the policies of the reigning king, for the monastic annals were subject to regal inspection. Any abbey that dared express adverse criticism might expect to lose its emoluments, if nothing worse. Secular writers, too, were prone to slant their materials in such a way as to present a patron or employer in a favorable light. And it was not unheard of for a chronicler, monastic or secular, to revise his history to make it more acceptable to a new regime, as in the case of John Hardyng's Chronicle, which was presented to Henry VI and then revised for presentation to Edward IV. Indeed, the bias of most contemporary and near-contemporary chroniclers of Richard II's reign is so evident that there is little difficulty in grouping these historians into "schools" according to the following points of view: Lancastrian, Ricardian, Yorkist, and nonpartisan. The "schools" of writers have been referred to throughout

205

APPKNDIX A

this book as (1) Lancastrian detractors of Richard, or the Lancastrians; (2) the pre-Yorkist English and French sympathizers with Richard; (3) the Yorkists; and (4) the nonpartisans. A general explanation of the point of view and make-up of each "school" of chroniclers and a brief description of each chronicle as it bears on the reign of Richard II follows. 1

LANCASTRIAN DETRACTORS OF RICHARD

The term "Lancastrian", as used here, refers to those chroniclers with an anti-Ricardian point of view who composed their works during the period from about 1377 to 1457; for the most part, they wrote during the reign of Henry IV (1399-1413) or Henry V (1413-1422) or the first part of the reign of Henry VI (1422-1461). These historians portray Richard as an unjust tyrant, exploiting the country for his own pleasure and ambition. To them Henry IV was a patriotic Englishman who came t o the rescue of his people. The Lancastrian chronicles formed the basis of the "wicked king" tradition that was passed on to the sixteenth century. They can be divided into two groups, the monastic and the non-monastic histories. Lancastrian Monastic

Chronicles

The most important monastic annals f r o m the Lancastrian point of view were those written at Saint Albans Monastery, in Hertford, not many miles from London. Here was maintained during the last decade of the fourteenth century and the early part of the fifteenth a scriptorium, that is, a room or department set aside for scribes or copyists. The histories that issued from this scriptorium are on the whole reliable but rather consistently lean toward a denigrating interpretation of Richard's behavior. It is difficult to account for this unfriendliness. True, in the course of his progresses Richard and his party stopped at Saint Albans a number of times and required lavish

i This description of sources is indebted to Charles Lethbridge Kingsford's English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913); Anthony Steel's Richard II (Cambridge. England, 1941); M. Auguste Molinicr's l.es Sources de I'histoire de France, IV, Les Valois, 1328-1461 (Paris, 1904); and to the prefaces of the printed editions of the various chronicles.

206

APPENDIX A

hospitality. But it was not only at Saint Albans and not only by King Richard that hospitality was expected of the monasteries. Royal requisitions for accommodations, often at great expense and inconvenience to the monks, were a subject of common complaint by the monasteries of this period. One incident, however, that happened while Richard was making a stop at Saint Albans seems to have been particularly galling to the abbey. The king borrowed a very fine palfrey from the abbey stables and never so much as returned it, though he did make a gift of a cask of wine in apparent recognition of his indebtedness. 2 Perhaps the fact that Richard made rich gifts to Westminster Abbey, and apparently not to Saint Albans, may account also in some measure for the unfavorable description of him that comes from the pens of the Saint Albans monks. The chronicles known to have been written at Saint Albans include the following: Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana and Ypodigma Neustriae; Chronicon Angliae and Annales Ricardi Secundi et Henrici, both of which are also attributed by some scholars to Walsingham. Thomas Walsingham was probably a native of Norfolkshire and may have attended Oxford. By the early 1390's, he had risen to high place at the Abbey of Saint Albans. Under Abbot Thomas de la Mare, he had been precentor and "scriptorarius", or head copyist. In fact, at the suggestion of Walsingham, the abbot had built a new scriptorium at Saint Albans. But in 1394 Walsingham was made prior of Wymondham and, upon the death of de la Mare in 1396, sat in the capacity of prior at the election of the new abbot, John de la Moot. Walsingham returned to Saint Albans in 1400 and seems to have died not long after 1422. He is the author or compiler of a number of historical works. Walsingham's Historia Anglicana3 covers the period from 1272 to 1422. It was written in two parts. The first section, dealing with material from 1272 to 1392, was put together in the early fifteenth century. The second, extending from 1392 to 1422, was composed toward the end of the first quarter of the fifteenth century. Most of

2 See Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, II, 103; also Benjamin Williams, Chronicque de la traison et mort de Richart Deux, roy Dengleterre (London, 1846), p. 121, n. 2. 3 Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, I (1272-1381), II (1381-1422), ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rolls Series (London, 1863-1864).

APPENDIX A

207

the first section was based on an older Saint Albans history, Royal MS 13 E i x at the British Museum, which may have been compiled by Walsingham himself. Of course the earlier years of this older Saint Albans history were dependent upon chronicles of a prior date; but the portion of Royal MS 13 E ix from 1377 to 1392 may be regarded as original4 with the compiler and was probably composed between 1392 and 1394, according to Riley, the editor of Historia,5 The second section of Historia Anglicana (1392-1422) is also based on an older Saint Albans history, MS No. vii at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University. A number of scholars think that the first and third chronicles in this manuscript — that is, the parts used as the source of Historia — came from the pen of Walsingham. Historia Anglicana is a contemporary 6 account for the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V. In fact, it is the most important contemporary chronicle to cover the whole of these three reigns, and it is often quoted by sixteenth-century historians. Historia includes all six of the episodes in Richard's career chosen for treatment in this book. It is the fullest of the Saint Albans group in describing the Peasants' Revolt and Richard's opposition to the Gloucester party in 1386-88, although its account of the "Wonderful" and the "Merciless" Parliaments of that period is sketchy. It includes some of the documentary material in connection with Richard's deposition, and it is the best of the Saint Albans histories in recording the reports of Richard's being alive after February, 1400. Besides Historia Anglicana, the other avowedly genuine work of Walsingham is Ypodigma Neustriae. The title means Demonstrations [of events] in Normandy.1 The author's plan, as stated in his dedication to Henry V, was to compile a history from the beginning of the conquest of Neustria 8 by the Normans to their conquest of 4

"Original", or "independent", is used throughout to mean that the account was written by an eyewitness or a person who had access to an eyewitness or at least is not dependent on any known written source, s Riley, Introduction, Historia Anglicana, II, xi, xvi. 6 "Contemporary" is used throughout to mean that the account was written by a person living during the time at which the events described took place. i Thomas Walsingham, Ypodigma Neustriae, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rolls Series (London, 1876). 8 In the division of the Frankish kingdom among the sons of Lothaire, Neustria was that section of western France from the Saône and Meuse and between the Loire on the south and the English Channel on the north. Later, the name was used to apply to Normandy only.

208

APPENDIX A

England and then to continue the history up to the time that Henry V conquered Normandy, in order to warn Henry that he must be cautious in dealing with Normans. The period covered is from the time of Rollo, first duke of Normandy (ninth century), to the sixth year of the reign of Henry V (1419). The chronicle was composed in 1419, apparently shortly after Henry's capture of Rouen. The earliest portion, from the ninth century to 1377, was compiled from older chronicles. The section from 1377 to 1392 shares a common source with Historia Anglicana, that is, Royal MS 13 E ix; in Ypodigma, this source has generally been abbreviated or copied verbatim, although there are a few changes and additions. The part of Ypodigma from 1392 to 1419 also shares a common source with Historia, that is, MS Corpus Christi, vii, which is closely followed. Ypodigma has something relevant to say about all the major points of Richard's reign; in discussing the Gloucester rebellion, it adds to Historia''s account the questions put to the justiciars at Nottingham. But, since this chronicle is generally based on the same sources as Historia and is much less full than Historia, it must be considered of secondary importance for Richard's times. Of the two Saint Albans chronicles that cannot with certainty be attributed to Walsingham, Chronicon Angliae9 is the older. Its editor, E. Maunde Thompson, states that the section of this history revolving about the year 1376 is in an independent form and must have been written by an anonymous monk of Saint Albans, but he admits that the rest of the chronicle may have been done by Walsingham. 10 Kingsford, on the other hand, attributes the entire work to Walsingham. 11 Chronicon Angliae covers the period from 1328 to 1388; but, apparently because of the negligence of a scribe, the years 1371-75 have been omitted. The original history was composed toward the close of the fourteenth century, probably between 1388 and 1392. Chronicon Angliae is a contemporary or near-contemporary account of the events that it describes. The successive revisions of the original manuscript of this history throw interesting light on the fourteenth-century chronicler's capacity for time-serving. The earliest 9 Chronicon Angliae, ed. Maunde Thompson, Rolls Series (London, 1874). 10 Thompson, Introduction, Chronicon Angliae, p. xxxiv. 11 Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, p. 12, n. 1.

APPENDIX A

209

version of Chronicon contained bitter attacks upon John of Gaunt, the father of Henry IV, possibly because of his Wycliffite leanings. The first revision suppressed the most violent of these attacks, and successive revisions continued to minimize criticism of Gaunt. The final revision of Chronicon Angliae appears in Royal MS 13 E ix, wherein all passages unfavorable to the House of Lancaster have been altered. Since this same Royal MS 13 E ix, as said above, is the basis for most of the earlier section of Historia Anglicana and Ypodigma, it follows that the original Chronicon Angliae is really an older, unexpurgated form of Historia Anglicana and Ypodigma for 1328-88. Chronicon Angliae covers no more than the earlier half of Richard's reign and deals with only two major episodes — the Peasants' Revolt, in which it agrees closely with Historia, and the Gloucester rebellion, including a record of the questions put to the justiciars. This latter episode is not completed but breaks off at the interview in the Tower after Radcot Bridge and so omits the "Merciless Parliament". Because of its narrow span, this chronicle is not very valuable for the history of Richard; but it deserves recognition as being the oldest Saint Albans account of 1386-88. Annates Ricardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti12 is the other one of the Saint Albans chronicles for this period that cannot with certainty be ascribed to Walsingham. Kingsford, however, believes that Walsingham's authorship cannot be entirely rejected. 13 But Riley, the editor of Annates, suggests William Wyntershylle, another monk of Saint Albans, as the compiler. 14 The history covers the years 1392-1406 and was composed in the early fifteenth century, probably before 1408. It is a contemporary account and forms the second, or middle, chronicle in Corpus Christi MS, No. vii. From this middle chronicle, as far as it goes, were eventually derived the other two Corpus Christi histories, which have already been cited as the foundation of the second section of Historia Anglicana and Ypodigma. Annates is therefore older than Historia and Ypodigma. It is a detailed chronicle; indeed, it is the fullest of all Lancastrian histories for the story of 12 Annates Ricardi Secundi, in Johannis de Trokelowe, et Henrici de Btaneforde, monachorum S. Albani, necnon quorundam anonymorum, chronica et annates, regnantibus Henrico Tertio, Edwardo Primo, Edwardo Secundo, Ricardo Secundo, et Henrico Quarto, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rolls Series (London, 1866). 13

Kingsford, p. 19.

14

Riley, Introduction, Annates,

pp. xxi-xxiv.

210

APPENDIX A

Richard's actions against the Gloucester party in 1397 and for the account of his capture, yielding the crown, humiliation, death and burial. Its value is heightened by the fact that it includes the legal documents through which Richard's deposition was brought about, such as the abdication, the gravamina, the deposition, the form in which Henry claimed the throne, and the form in which announcement of deposition was made to Richard. A chronicle which may well be grouped with the productions of the Saint Albans scriptorium is Chronica Regum Angliae1S — not that it was written at Saint Albans, but that it apparently draws all its material from Historia Anglicana and Annates, or else it shares a common source with Historia. Of the Thomas Otterbourne who composed this piece, nothing is really known. Kingsford points out that he has been confused with another Thomas Otterbourne, a Franciscan friar who was reader of his order at Oxford about 1350; but he is more likely to be identifiable with a priest who became rector of Chingford in 1393. 16 Internal evidence indicates that Otterbourne is of northern origin. His Chronica Regum Angliae covers the history of England from the legendary days of Brutus till 1420; it was probably composed about 1423. Because of its derivative nature and the frequent brevity of its treatment, this chronicle is of little value for the reign of Richard II. A Lancastrian chronicle indebted to the Saint Albans histories for the earlier portion of its narrative but independent in its record of the crucial events that happened in the late 1390's is a work known as Historia Vitae et RegniRicardi II.11 The title is a misnomer; this is not a biography of Richard, but a general history of England from 1377 through 1402. It forms a fragment of a piece that was apparently written as a continuation of the Polychronicon.18 The author is an anonymous monk of Evesham, a monastery in the West-Midlands close to the Welsh border. Kingsford sets the date of composition as shortly after 1402, the closing date of the chronicle. The material from 1377 through 1390, 15 Thomas Otterbourne, Chronica Regum Angliae, in Duo Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores Veteres, I, ed. Thomas Hearne (Oxford, 1732). 16 Kingsford, p. 21. 17 Monk of Kvesham, Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi Secundi, Angliae Regis, ed. Thomas Hearne (Oxford, 1729). 18 George Kriehn, "Studies in the Sources of the Social Revolt in 1381", 1-IV, American Historical Review, Vll (1902), 269.

APPENDIX A

211

except for the year 1381, is taken from the Saint Albans histories: Walsingham's older Chronica Majora (now lost), Historia Anglicana, and Chronicon Angliae. Most of the account of the Peasants' Revolt in 1381 is especially valuable because it is independent of the Saint Albans works. Here the narrative is the result of the monk's own findings or else is based on a different source. Kriehn favors the latter possibility and points out that a no-longer-extant contemporary London account is the most probable source, since details are given about the uprising in London, but not in the west country, where Evesham lay. 19 The Evesham author pictures Richard as especially vindictive after the Smithfield debacle, as well as on a number of later occasions. From 1391 on, the account is apparently original with the Monk of Evesham. At first he writes briefly as if from memory. But he gives a full description of the parliament of 1397, depending largely upon the Rolls of Parliament for that year; and his record of the events in 1398-99 is valuable for its great detail. Surprisingly, the Monk of Evesham is milder toward Richard than the other Lancastrian chroniclers in connection with the exiling of Hereford and Norfolk; and he is the only major Lancastrian who does not record that Richard promised at Conway to resign his crown. The Vita proper includes some documentary material in connection with the deposition parliament. Attached to one manuscript of the Evesham history (Cotton Tiberius C ix 1) is an appendix, quite distinct from the main text, or the Vita proper. This appendix includes a brief introduction reviewing in condensed fashion the story of Henry's conquest and then gives a detailed account of the proceedings of the parliament that deposed Richard II, taken directly from a Parliamentary roll. Like Annates, the appendix to the Vita includes the full official documents by which the deposition of Richard was accomplished. Closely connected with the Evesham history is a continuation of another monastic chronicle, the Poly chronic on, or Universal History. The Polychronicon itself was written in Latin by Ranulph Higden, a Benedictine monk of Saint Werberg's Abbey in Chester; it extends from the creation of the world to about the 1340's A.D., different copies ending in somewhat different years. This was one of the most popular histories of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, extant still 19 Ibid.

212

APPENDIX A

in more than a hundred Latin manuscripts. To it were added a number of Latin continuations, mostly anonymous. But it is to the English translations and their continuations in English that attention is here called. In the fourteenth century, the Polychronicon was turned into English by John Trevisa, who added a continuation. This translation was later printed by Caxton as the basis of his own continuation of the Polychronicon, which is treated below under the nonpartisan school. A second English translation was made in the fifteenth century, between 1432 and 1450. The anonymous translator added a continuation covering the period from 1344 to 1402. This continuation of the Polychronicon (in Harleian MS 2261) 20 is, for the period from 1377 to 1402, a fairly close translation of the Monk of Evesham's Vita (without the appendix) and is here used as a Lancastrian source along with the Evesham chronicle. If the Vita itself really is a fragment of a continuation of the Polychronicon, perhaps this unknown fifteenth-century translator had before him a copy of the Polychronicon to which was attached an unbroken Evesham continuation in Latin from 1344 to 1402. This is conjecture only, however, as the Latin original (if there be one) for the Harleian 2261 English continuation is missing for the period from 1344 to 1377. A monastic chronicle that is apparently not at all dependent upon the Saint Albans group is the Continuation of the Chronicon of Henry Knighton. 21 The Chronicon is divided into five parts, or books. Knighton, who was a canon of St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester, seems, presumably because of blindness, to have stopped his work abruptly upon completing Book IV. 22 After a gap of a few years (the closing years of Edward Ill's reign are omitted), Book V was added by a new hand as a continuation. The new and unknown writer, the continuator, was probably also a monk of Leicester Abbey. His Continuation begins with the accession of Richard II in 1377 and ends in 1395; apparently it was composed soon after the events described 20 Continuation o f the Polychronicon, in Appendix III, Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, monachi Cestrensis, together with the English Translations of John Trevisa and of an Unknown Writer of the Fifteenth Century, ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1882), VIII, 4 2 9 - 5 2 1 . 21 Continuation of Knighton's Chronicon, Bk. V of Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon, monachi Ley cestrensis, II, ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1895). 22 Lumby, Introduction, Knighton's Chronicon, II, xcvii.

APPENDIX A

213

had taken place. The Continuation is marked by strong admiration for John of Gaunt, a patron of Leicester Abbey and at one time of the Lollards, and yet by equally strong condemnation of the Lollards. The Continuation of Knighton is valuable as an original record of its times. The account of the Peasants' Revolt grants Richard more courage and mercy than most Lancastrian narratives do. For the years 1386-88, this is by far the most detailed of the Lancastrian histories and one of the most important of all records of this period. Its value is further enhanced by the inclusion of the following official documents: the eight articles of arraignment against Michael de la Pole, the document authorizing the Commission to oversee the affairs of the kingdom, the questions to the justiciars and their answers, an explanatory letter to the Londoners from the Gloucester party, and the thirty-nine articles of accusation against de Vere, de la Pole, Neville, Tresilian, and Brembre. Besides the Knighton Continuation, another monastic chronicle not indebted to the Saint Albans scriptorium and by and large Lancastrian in point of view is the Continuation of Eulogium Historiarum {Compendium of Histories).23 The Eulogium proper, extending from the beginning of the world to 1366, was probably compiled by a scribe at Malmesbury Abbey. The Continuation of the Eulogium, covering 1364 to 1413, is found in only one manuscript (Cotton MS Galba E vii). The editor of Eulogium, Frank S. Haydon, believes that the Continuation was written by a monk at the Abbey of Canterbury, not Malmesbury, for, as he points out, there are six notices of Canterbury in this chronicle and not one of Malmesbury. Either the parts of the Continuation were composed at very different times, or more than one source was used in its composition, for one entry was made before 1404 and another after 1428. The probable date of composition is around 1429. The continuator was probably contemporary with a portion at least of the period of which he wrote. To what extent the account is original is not really known. Kingsford is of the opinion that the Continuation is almost entirely a derived work. He conjectures that one of its sources is "a brief Latin Chronicle possibly of Canterbury origin" and that another is a version of the Brut.24 Haydon says he does not know from what sources the 23 Continuation of Eulogium, in Eulogium (Historiarum ed. Frank Scott Haydon, Rolls Series (London, 1863). M Kingsford, pp. 30-31.

sive Temporis),

III,

214

APPENDIX A

Continuation was taken, "if it be not original". In commenting on the value of the chronicle, he says: "I am, however, decidedly of opinion that there is an amount of original historical information contained in the Chronicle which very far outweighs the trivialities, the repetitions, and the mistakes which deface it." 2 5 Although the general tenor of the Eulogium Continuation is inimical to Richard, there are a number of entries that are denigrating to the king's enemies. For instance, in the record of the Gloucester rebellion, the continuator makes clear that the lords had Richard's friends condemned by gaining the assent of parliament and not by proving their guilt. Again, in the narrative of how Richard lost his crown, the chronicler indicates that the king was forced to promise renunciation and that, even in the Tower, on the very point of abdication, Richard hesitated to resign, at first refusing and finally, under pressure, consenting. The Continuation of the Eulogium is characterized by the inclusion of picturesque details, many of them unique. It is the only chronicle to parallel deliberately certain features of the 1397 parliament with those of the 1388 parliament, as though this were the intention of Richard. This chronicle alone among the Lancastrian histories mentions the presence of the Bishop of Carlisle at the parliament that deposed Richard. And the Continuation of Eulogium is the fullest of all histories for records of Richard's being alive after 1400. The long accounts of Franciscan uprisings at Aylesbury and Leicester, in 1402, are apparently original and indicate autopticity, mediate or immediate.

Lancastrian Non-Monastic

Chronicles

The Lancastrian chroniclers writing outside of the monasteries may conveniently be divided into two groups: those individuals w h o signed their names t o their works and were evidently ambitious to be known to posterity as historians and those annalists who were content to be anonymous. For the most part, the former group left original, often eyewitness, accounts for events that happened during their own times; the latter group mostly compiled from older chronicles; but the manuscripts from which they compiled were based ultimately on sources written contemporaneously with the events described, and 25

Haydon, Preface, Eulogium,

III, lxxxiii.

APPENDIX A

215

they sometimes added original material from their own knowledge. Adam of Usk is the most important of the secular independent Lancastrian chroniclers for this period. He was born of poor parents at Usk in Monmouthshire, Wales, about 1352. He was patronized by Edmund Mortimer, third earl of March, who held the lordship of Usk in the right of his wife, Philippa of Clarence, granddaughter of Edward III. With the aid of Mortimer, Usk became an exhibitioner in laws at Oxford around 1368, a step which involved his taking holy orders; perhaps twelve years later, he received the degree of doctor of laws at Oxford. In 1381, he was made a papal notary by Pileo di Prata; and in 1387 he became a supernumerary lecturer in canon law at his alma mater. In 1388-89 he was involved as a leader in the Oxford riots between the Welsh and the Southerners on the one hand and the Northern scholars on the other hand. Next, Usk practiced law in the Archbishop's Court in Canterbury, from 1392 t o 1397. He had been brought to Canterbury through the influence of Thomas Arundel, by whom he was sponsored f o r the remainder of Arundel's life. Usk was present in the September, 1397, parliament, but in what capacity it is not known. In 1399, he accompanied Archbishop Arundel t o Bristol in the train of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and followed Henry's march north t o Chester. With Lancaster's army and the captive king he returned to London and was appointed, as canon lawyer, on a commission to decide how and for what reasons to depose the king. It was this commission that investigated, and pronounced unfounded, Henry's claim to the throne by inheritance from Edmund, son of Henry III. Usk visited Richard in the Tower and was present at Henry's first parliament and coronation. He continued to practice law in England until 1402 and was retained as counsel in a number of important cases, some of t h e m governmental. On November 2, 1402, Adam stole a black horse, saddle and bridle, plus fourteen marks; he was convicted of common thievery and forced to leave England. Usk went to Rome, where he was favorably received and practiced law in the Papal Court. Later he practiced law in Flanders and France. In 1408, he formulated a scheme by which t o obtain pardon from Henry: he would pretend to be Owen Glendower's man and would then desert - and probably betray — his compatriot. This plan he executed; he was pardoned by Henry IV in 1411. For most of his remaining years, until his death in 1430, he served as a parish priest. His career certainly reveals him as an

APPENDIX A

adventurer, but Steel probably exaggerates when he calls Adam a "pushing, vulgar attorney without principle or scruple". 26 Chronicon Adae de Usk27 covers the period from 1377 through the summer of 1421. It is intended as a continuation of the Polychronicon and is attached to a handsome copy of Historia Policronica belonging to Adam. In the nature of its composition, however, the narrative of Usk is not so much a history as a personal record of the events of his own times. The style is long-winded, rhetorical, and conceited; the chronicle has its full quota of prophecies and marvels. But nevertheless this is an important account, for the author was an eyewitness to, and even a participant in, many of the events which he describes. Usk did not compose the entire chronicle at one time: some events were recorded as they occurred, but others were related long afterwards from memory. Usk completed his chronicle in May, 1421. For the first seventeen years the events in the Chronicon are meager and not arranged in chronological order; Usk himself warns that this portion is not to be regarded as a continuous narrative. But from 1397 on till Adam's return to England in 1411 the narrative is full and valuable. Since Usk was an eyewitness in the fall parliament of 1397, his account of that assembly is understandably full. Again, since Usk was actually with the army that brought Richard back from Chester as a captive and since he later visited Richard in the Tower, whatever he has to say about the period from the promise of renunciation at Conway through the death and burial of the king has a strong claim to authenticity. Among the Lancastrian chronicles, another original, eyewitness account is really a political treatise known as Historia Mirabilis Parliament i, MCCCLXXXVI,28 written by Thomas Favent, clerk. For political reasons, a rough English translation of this pamphlet was published in 1641 under the title An Historicall Narration of the Manner and Form of that Memorable Parliament which Wrought 26

Steel, Richard II, p. 298.

27 Adam of Usk, Chronicon Adae de Usk, cd. with an English translation by E d w a r d M a u n d e T h o m p s o n ( 2 d ed.; L o n d o n , 1904). 28 T h o m a s l avent, Historia Siue Narracio de Modo et Forma Mirabilis Parliamenti apud Westmonasterium Anno Domini Millesimo CCCLXXXVJ, regni vero regis Ricardi Secundi post conquestum anno decimo, ed. May McKisack, Camden Miscellany, XIV; C a m d e n T h i r d Series, XXXVII ( L o n d o n , 1926).

APPENDIX A

217

Wonders, related by Thomas Fannant, clerk. The anonymous seventeenth-century translator did not intimate in his preface that he was making use of a fourteenth-century manuscript. The original Latin manuscript was published in 1926 by May McKisack. Thomas Favent was probably a clerk of Salisbury Diocese, according to Miss McKisack. She believes his name should be written Fovent and identifies him with a noted Hampshire territorial family of that name. Tout believes that he might have been a member of the household of one of the appellants in the parliament that he describes at length. 2 9 The name of Favent's pamphlet is misleading. Internal evidence shows the assembly in which the author was most interested to be the "Merciless Parliament" of February t o June, 1388, not the "Wonderful Parliament" of 1386, as the title states. 3 0 The pamphleteer covers the period from 1386 to June, 1388. His account is marked by vividness and a strong partisan spirit in favor of the Gloucester party. Some use is made of official documents. For instance, the interval between the "Wonderful Parliament" and the "Merciless Parliament" is introduced by what seems to be a condensation of the thirty-nine articles against the king's favorites. And the exact recording of the amounts of allowance given the exiled justiciars indicates access to some parliamentary records, perhaps the Rolls themselves. The most valuable part of this piece of political propaganda is its description of the "Merciless Parliament". The circumstantial detail given in this portion seems to mark it as an eyewitness account. Miss McKisack believes that the original Historia Mirabilis Parliamenti was written almost immediately after the dissolution of the "Merciless Parliament". She feels that the long series of capital punishments might have caused a reaction against the Gloucester party and that Favent probably wrote this treatise to justify the actions of the appellants. 31 Besides Favent, John Capgrave (d. 1464) was another individual belonging to the secular, rather than the regular, clergy who left posterity signed writings of an historical nature. Capgrave was an

29 Thomas Frederick Tout, "The English Parliament and Public Opinion, 1376-1388", The Collected Papers of Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester: University Press, 1934), II, 186. 30 See above, p.29, n. 1. 31 McKisack, Preface, Favent's Historia, p. vi.

218

APPENDIX A

Augustinian friar at Lynn, in Norfolk, and was patronized during the earlier part of his life, at least, by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (fourth son of Henry IV). He wrote two chronicles, Liber de Illustribus Henricis,32 dedicated to Henry VI, and Chronicle of England, dedicated to Edward IV. Besides the histories, the friar, who was a learned man, composed numerous commentaries on the Bible and many other theological and religious works; he also wrote a life of his patron, Humphrey. Capgrave represents the typical time-serving medieval historian. His first chronicle, avowedly composed to praise Henry VI and present him with the best examples of kingship, is altogether flattering to Henry IV and shows Richard as consciously unworthy to rule and willing to resign; the later chronicle, however, pictures Henry's rule as an intrusion and indicates doubt as to whether or not Richard wanted to give up his throne. But perhaps Capgrave was not utterly insincere; he was likely enough just a mild religious who revered the king of whatever time and was more concerned to gain favor for himself and his friary at Lynn than to champion either the House of Lancaster or the House of York. In his Liber (p. 102), Capgrave makes a claim to lack of prejudice. He has the following to say about his attempt to compile an impartial account of Richard's loss of the crown and Henry's assumption of it: Forasmuch as different writers have given different accounts of the deposition of Richard II and elevation of King Henry [to the throne], — and no wonder, since, in so great a struggle, one took one side and one took another, — I, who stand in the middle between the two parties, consider that I hold a better and a safer path, since, having investigated both sides of the question, I set myself diligently to elucidate the truth alone. In explaining the method by which Capgrave made his compilations, the editor of his works, F.C. Hingeston, points out that, of course, the friar had to depend on older chronicles for the record of periods before his own, but that, for contemporary events, he conscientiously leaned upon his own experiences and the testimony of acquaintances; in using sources, he selected with care, and he weighed well the evidence of his friends. 33 Of Capgrave's two books, the Chronicle 32 John Capgrave, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, ed. l' rancis Charles Hingeston, Rolls Series (London, 1858). 33 Hingeston, General Introduction, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, p. xix.

APPENDIX A

219

belongs to the Yorkist school and will be discussed below, but the Liber is Lancastrian and will be described now. The Liber de Illustribus Henricis was compiled at several different periods during the reign of Henry VI and was completed about 1446. The book, which is divided into three parts, traces the careers of twenty-four famous Henrys. Part II, the direct concern of this book and the longest and most valuable section of Capgrave's work, is devoted to English history; it takes up the six English kings named Henry, extending from the accession of Henry I (1100) to the twenty-fourth year of Henry VI (1446). For the story of Henry Bolingbroke and his relations with Richard II, some of the material is original, based on the author's experience or the authority of his friends. But Capgrave also draws largely upon the Saint Albans histories. Naturally, since the Liber, Part II, is written in praise of Henry IV, little attention is given to events in which Henry did not distinguish himself, such as the Peasants' Revolt and the fall parliament of 1397. Henry is said to have achieved the throne "by the Providence of God". The chronicler includes in his history the form of the abdication. For Part II of the Liber, Capgrave's chronology is sometimes faulty, and the narrative is full of errors. For instance, Henry's father is called the third son of Edward III and his mother, the daughter of the king of Castile. (Capgrave corrects these errors in the Chronicle of England.) The last two Lancastrians to write signed stories of this period, John Hardyng and John Gower, have these two things in common: neither was officially connected with the church and both wrote their chronicles in metrical form. Hardyng (1378- ca. 1465) was a professional soldier. At the age of twelve, he entered the services of Sir Henry Percy (Hotspur) and fought under him at Homildon and Shrewsbury. Upon the death of Hotspur in 1403, he took service with Sir Robert Umfraville and was made by him constable ofWarkworth Castle and later of Kyme Castle. Under Umfraville and his nephew Gilbert, Hardyng saw military service on the Scottish Border and in France; he fought in the battle of Agincourt. Like Capgrave, Hardyng changed his allegiance from the House of Lancaster to the House of York in order to curry favor with the reigning king. His Chronicle was written in English in two versions, the first addressed to Henry VI and presented to him in 1457 and the

220

APPKNDIX A

second dedicated to Richard, duke of York (father of Edward IV) and presented to Edward in May, 1463. In order to understand the manner in which the Chronicle was written, it is necessary to look a little further into Hardyng's career. In 1418, he was sent by Henry V to Scotland in order to spy out the prospects of an invasion of that country and to collect documents regarding the English claim to overlordship of Scotland. (Early in the reign of Edward III, Mortimer had resigned a number of these documents to the Scots through Robert Bruce.) Four years later Hardyng presented to Henry V his findings, along with a collection of documents. He was promised a manor in Northamptonshire as a reward, but failed to receive it because of the death of the king shortly thereafter. Perhaps Hardyng went to Scotland again on the same mission in 1434. At any rate, when he later presented a second set of documents to Henry VI and petitioned for a reward, he stated that he had been offered a bribe by James I of Scotland in 1434 for the return of the documents. This petition to be rewarded for services was made in 1440, and Hardyng received an annual pension of ten pounds. He did not consider this adequate, however, and again petitioned in 1451, without definite results. When Hardyng next asked Henry VI for a reward, in November, 1457, he presented to the king, along with six Scottish documents, a copy of his Chronicle, completed in that year. For this he was given a further grant of twenty pounds a year. Still not satisfied, he began to work at once on a revised version of the Chronicle. This second version, as said above, was presented to Edward IV, with a selection of the Scottish documents. Apparently Hardyng's main purpose in writing both versions of his history was to urge his claims to reward in return for the documents. In the Chronicle every possible opportunity is used to refer to the Scottish overlordship, to Hardyng's obtaining the relevant documents and presenting them to the king, and to his disappointment in receiving inadequate recognition for his services. According to Kingsford, the documents with which Hardyng was so preoccupied are forgeries. They were easily exposed as such, says Kingsford, 34 by Sir Francis Palgrave in his Documents and Records Relating to Scotland (pp. 377-378). If this be true, then Hardyng is discredited as a trustworthy historian. Of course, the chronicler himself may have been imposed upon by the persons from whom he obtained the documents. 34

Kingsford, p. 142.

APPENDIX A

221

Since the first version of Hardyng's metrical history, Lansdowne MS 204 in the British Museum (from the earliest times to 1437), is not readily accessible, being unprinted except for excerpts, 35 and is of minor historical importance anyway, it has not been used in this book. The later version will be taken up below under the Yorkist school. John Gower (ca. 1330-ca. 1408), best known as a story-teller in verse and a friend of Chaucer, is the author of two metrical chronicles, or social and political pieces, Vox Clamantis and Cronica Tripertita, both worthy of consideration as contemporary, independent accounts of certain periods of Richard's reign. Coming from a good Kentish family, Gower made his home in London. What occupation he followed besides writing is not known. According to the first edition of Confessio Amantis (1390), dedicated to Richard II, Gower knew the king personally — met him on the Thames and was invited to enter the royal barge, where in conversation with the king he received the suggestion that led to the writing of the Confessio. From later revisions of this collection of verse tales, it is evident that the poet grew mistrustful of Richard's governance and came to look upon Henry Bolingbroke as the possible savior of the kingdom from bad government. The 1393 edition of the Confessio is dedicated to Henry (indeed at least some copies of the very earliest addition contain a secondary dedication to him). Also in 1393, Gower accepted a collar from Henry. That the poet died a supporter of Henry IV is clear from the effigy on Gower's magnificent tomb in the church of the priory of Saint Mary Overy (now Saint Saviour's, Southwark); this recumbent image is wearing a collar of SS bearing the swan badge, which was used by Henry after the death of his uncle the Duke of Gloucester. The earlier of Gower's histories is Vox Clamantis (Voice of One Complaining),36 written in Latin elegiac verse. Under the form of a metaphor, the first portion describes the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. The rest of the poem is social criticism, dealing with the faults of the various classes of society. The first edition of Vox Clamantis, apparently composed soon after 1381, acquits Richard of all blame

35 Although Lansdowne 204 is not in print in entirety, C.L. Kingsford has published extracts from this first version of Hardyng's Chronicle in English Historical Review, XXVII (1912), 740-753. 36 J o h n Gower, Vox Clamantis, in The Complete Works of John Gower, The Latin Works, ed. G.C. Macaulay ( O x f o r d , 1902), IV, 20-313.

222

APPENDIX A

for the state of affairs in the kingdom, on the grounds of his youth; but, as in the case of Confessio Amantis, Gower made successive revisions of his poem, and the alterations show an increasing disappointment in the rule of the young king. By the time Gower came to write Cronica Tripertita (Three-Part Chronicle),31 around 1401, Henry IV was king, and the poet had decided that Richard had been a tyrant before 1381, that the Peasants' Revolt had been a divine warning for him to change his ways, and that his failure to do so caused his final downfall. The narrative describes metaphorically the main events of 1387 through 1399. The verse is written in Latin leonine hexameters; and the language is strained, overbalanced, and artificial. Such blame is heaped upon Richard, and such fulsome praise is given the Gloucester party and Henry, that the piece would be of little importance without the corrective of other chronicles. In addition to the signed non-monastic chronicles just discussed, there are two important unsigned secular histories that represent the Lancastrian point of view. These are the London Chronicles and certain Continuations of the Brut, both extremely popular histories throughout the fifteenth century. The London Chronicles are written in English in the form of annals. These developed in early times as the result of the City government's need for a record of the succession of civic officers; the annals were perhaps compiled by officials in the Guildhall or by leading citizens. Their distinctive feature is that each new reign is headed with a list of the mayors and the sheriffs for that reign. Then events are given under mayoral years, "Anno primo", "Anno secundo", etc. This practice causes some difficulty in the chronology since the mayoral year of London in the Middle Ages began on October 29 and the regnal year, of course, started on whatever day the new king actually began to reign; the two years were, naturally, almost never coterminous. To the lists of officials in the City Annals there came to be added notices of outstanding events in London and of memorable happenings in the country at large. But it was not until the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century that the London Chronicles as they have come down to posterity first took shape. Kingsford sets 1382 as the earliest date in which these Chronicles could have been written in their present shape contemporaneously with events record37

John Gower, Cronica Tripertita, in The Complete

Works, IV, 314-343.

APPENDIX A

223

ed; he thinks 1414 a more probable date. 3 8 From this time on, the City Chronicles were constantly being reproduced, revised, and added to. The last recension of the earlier Chronicles was made in 1446, but original continuations were being added throughout the fifteenth century and into the sixteenth. The importance of the London Chronicles as a whole is that they were strictly contemporary in their origin. Also they reflect the popular opinion of the Capital, and perhaps of the mercantile class, concerning the events which they record. The version of the London Chronicles used as a source here is called The Great Chronicle of London,39 so named by Kingsford as being "the fullest and most valuable copy of the London Chronicles which we possess" in their earliest form. 4 0 It covers the period from 1189 to 1512. Its latest editors, Thomas and Thornley, give convincing evidence that it may have been written by Fabyan, 4 1 but Kingsford disagrees, and in the absence of proof the chronicle must be considered anonymous. The Great Chronicle seems to have been compiled between 1509 and 1512. From its beginning to 1440, it is based on the 1440 redaction of the early London Chronicles, but represents most fully the earlier recension of 1430. From 1440 to 1496, The Great Chronicle is based on The Main City Chronicle (1440-1485) and its continuation. It ends with a continuation to 1503 and another one to 1512. For the reign of Richard II, The Great Chronicle of London is mildly Lancastrian; it includes a long series of documents relating to the parliament by which Richard was deposed. Based to a large extent on the Chronicles of London is a second popular history of the Middle Ages, the Brut with its continuations, or the English Chronicle, embracing a period from the legendary time of Albina and Brutus to A.D. 1479. The Brut proper was written in French originally and called Brut d'Engleterre\ there are two versions in this language, both anonymous. Kingsford, however, has suggested that the longer version, ending in 1333, may have been written by William Pakington, treasurer to Edward the Black Prince. 42 Near the

38 Kingsford, pp. 75-76. 39 The Great Chronicle of London (Guildhall Library MS 3313), ed. A.H. Thomas and I.D. Thornley (London, 1938). 40 Kingsford, pp. 70-71. 41 Thomas and Thornley, Introduction, Great Chronicle of London, pp. liv-lv. 42 Kingsford, p. 114.

224

APPENDIX A

close of the fourteenth century this longer French version was translated into English with a continuation to 1377. Like the Chronicles of London, the Brut was constantly being reproduced throughout the fifteenth century with continuations of varying length, most of them anonymous and many of them apparently independent of one another. Dr. Friedrich W.D. Brie, editor of the Brut, enumerates no fewer than one hundred and twenty-one such versions. The ordinary version extending to 1461 was adopted by Caxton and printed in 1480 as his Chronicles of England. In Caxton's edition, therefore, the Brut became the first of the printed English histories. It was perhaps the most popular Chronicle of England for three centuries, and it underlies such Latin works as the Continuation of Eulogium and some Saint Albans histories and nearly all the great chronicles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most of the versions of the Brut are largely indebted t o the City Chronicles. But in adapting the London annals to their purposes the continuators of the Brut often omit the lists of mayors and sheriffs and thus convert their source into a continuous narrative. And the Chronicles of London are not the only source of information for the Chronicles of England. The anonymous continuators of the Brut evidently had access to other written narratives, to ballads and popular poems, to newsletters and reports of eyewitnesses, to floating tradition and other sources resting ultimately on the evidence of individuals present at the events described. There is enough original material in the Brut to make it a valuable contribution to historical literature. In commenting on its importance, Kingsford points out the significance "in the fact that through the London Chronicles and the Brut a narrative written in English speech for popular use for the first time takes rank as a leading contemporary authority". 4 3 As sources of the picture of Richard II given in this book, three different continuations of the Brut have been consulted, two taking the Lancastrian point of view and the other, the Yorkist. The former will be described now, and the latter, with the Yorkist group. In 1906-08, Dr. Brie published the Brut in t w o volumes, or parts. Part I contains his translation of the Brut dEngleterre, ending in 1333; Part II selects from various manuscripts a number of continuations, excerpts f r o m continuations, and pieces not published before, including the two Lancastrian continuations used here. The first of

43 ibid., p. 135.

225

APPENDIX A

these is the anonymous Continuation of the Brut from 1377 to 1419 taken from Cambridge MS Kk I 12, 4 4 written about 1430. This manuscript represents the ordinary version for this period and is based on a City Chronicle. It expresses strong hostility to Richard in his punishment of Gloucester and Arundel, but pity for him in his fall. The second Lancastrian Continuation used here is taken from Harleian MS 53, 4 5 which extends through 1436. It was written anonymously around 1453, but is based on a narrative originally composed around 1437. This is a peculiar version, unlike the usual narrative of the Brut continuations for this period. For the reign of Richard II, it perhaps has an unknown common source with the Continuation of the Eulogium.

PRE-YORKIST ENGLISH AND FRENCH

SYMPATHIZERS

WITH R I C H A R D

The chronicles that were written on English soil before the Yorkist period and that show sympathy for Richard are comparatively few and less well-known than the French histories; but they are important as being original records written by persons living in the midst of the upheavals of Richard's reign, or as much in the midst as monastic authors can be expected to live. These few pre-Yorkist accounts by Englishmen show that there was at least the skeleton of a Ricardian party in England in 1399. Speaking of the reason for the scarcity of contemporary English records favorable to Richard, Henri Wallon, in the preface to his Richard II (p. v), says: During the three reigns assured to their House, the Lancastrians imposed their sentiments upon the chroniclers, hushed up the voices that were raised in favor of Richard, searched, pried even into the heart of the monasteries, and tore up the leaves that could have passed such opinions on to posterity. Comments could be made freely about

44 Continuation of the Brut (Cambridge MS Kk I 12), in the Brut, or the Chronicles of England, Part II, ed. I-riedrick W.D. Brie (= Early English Text Society, Original Series, No. 136) (London, 1908), pp. 335-361. 45

Continuation of the Brut (Harleian MS 53), in the Brut, Part II, ed. Brie (= EETS, O.S., No. 136), pp. 5 4 4 - 5 4 6 . Only extracts from Harleian MS 5 3 are printed in this text.

226

APPENDIX A

Richard only within prescribed limits; and today it is to French documents that England turns to find the truth about this altered page of her history. To be sure, the French chroniclers are prejudiced to a degree, and understandably so, since the French were the traditional enemies of the English and since Charles VI's daugther Isabella was the wife of Richard during the last years of his reign. They show Richard as gentle, courageous, and loyal, betrayed by cruel men with selfish ambitions. To them Henry was a shrewd and unscrupulous politician. From these French chronicles came the "martyr king" tradition, appearing in Yorkist histories and passing on down to Renaissance literature, where it formed a needed corrective to the Lancastrian picture of Richard as a "wicked king". The chronicles in this school fall obviously into two groups, those written in England and those written in France. All four of the English histories were composed in monasteries; but, of the five French chronicles, all but one were secularly composed. Pre- Yorkist English Sympathizers

with Richard

Despite the brevity of the period it covers (1381-94), by far the most important of the pre-Yorkist English chronicles sympathizing with Richard is the Monk of Westminster's Latin Continuation of John Malvern's Continuation of the Polychronicon,46 Lumby, who edited Malvern's Continuation from 1346 to 1381 as Appendix I in Volume VIII of the Polychronicon in the Rolls Series, assumed that the rest of the manuscript piece in which Malvern's Continuation appears was written by the same hand and published it as though it were, in Volume IX of the Polychronicon. But Dr. J. Armitage Robinson (in "An Unrecognized Westminster Chronicler", Proceedings of the British Academy [1907-08], pp. 61 ff.) has shown that this second continuation, from 1381 to 1394, is not by Malvern, who was from Worcester Monastery, but by an unknown monk probably from Westminster. The identity of this unknown Monk of Westminster can not be established; but Steel suggests as a most likely author

46 Monk of Westminster, Continuation of John Malvern's Continuation of the Polychronicon (Cambridge MS, Corpus Christi, No. 197), in Polychronicon, IX, ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1886).

APPENDIX A

227

John Lakyngheth, cellarer and twice treasurer of Westminster, who died in 1396. 47 Whoever the Monk of Westminster was, he must have been a simple man, not very clever about assimilating his materials and weaving them together. In recording the events of 1386-88, he breaks a consecutive Latin narrative, from the appointment of the Commission of governance to the impeachment of the king's favorites, with the insertion of a French chronicle describing the events of the parliament of early 1388. Then, returning to the Latin, he tells again the judgment passed on de Vere and his associates and adds a sort of running commentary on the parliamentary proceedings just presented in the French chronicle. All this is thickly interspersed with documents in French, two of them prefaced by a review of the actions of the magnates. This arrangement leads to much recapitulation, sometimes confusing. Despite the rambling method, the Monk of Westminster has produced a valuable history. This is a contemporary account, probably written between 1381 and 1395, giving independent judgments in places, such as in the description of Brembre's trial, which reads like the work of an eyewitness. For the Peasants' Revolt, this chronicle seems to follow in part the same London contemporary source that the Anonimalle Chronicle uses. 4 8 For 1386-88, the Westminster Continuation furnishes by far the most detailed account of all the chronicles, carefully dating and locating major events. It contains many official documents, including the statute appointing the Commission in 1386, the questions to the judiciars, the thirty-nine articles against de Vere and his associates, and the pardon to the appellants. Best of all, the author attempts to tell an honest story with a minimum of prejudice for either party. What prejudice there is seems to be on the side of Richard. The character of the king is always painted in attractive colors, with emphasis on his religious nature. The magnates, on the other hand, are portrayed as cruel and unscrupulous, operating outside the law, canonical and civil. Among the early English chronicles sympathetic to Richard, perhaps the next most important to the Monk of Westminster's Continuation is a history known as Anonimalle Chronicle,49 compiled in 47 48 49

Steel, p. 296. See the discussion of the Anonimalle sources below, pp. 228-229. The Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333 to 1381, ed. V.H. Galbraith, Publications

228

APPLNDIX A

French, as a continuation of the Brut d'Engleterre, by an English scribe writing in Saint Mary's Abbey, York. How the piece acquired its name is an interesting story. The Ingilby manuscript, in which it is included, was used by John Stow; and Francis Thynne, friend of Stow, when he copied out the portion of the manuscript dealing with the Peasants' Revolt, affixed to it the heading "out of an anominalle [s/c] cronicle belonging to the abbey of St. Maries in York". The phrase was picked up to serve as a title and was then corrected by Galbraith, the editor of this history, to "anonimalle", which he felt sure Thynne intended to write. The Anonimalle Chronicle covers the period from 1333 to 1381. Galbraith thinks it likely that the section from 1333 through 1356 was composed by a scribe writing before 1382 and that the remaining portion was composed by two other scribes writing between 1396 and 1399. 50 The sources of this history are not definitely known. It seems to be a patchwork of no longer extant Latin and English chronicles, of newsletters, and of formal documents - all merely transcribed or translated, with a few original additions. It is, then, a contemporary, but hardly an independent, account. Since the compilers express very little personal opinion about the events they are transcribing, the value of this chronicle is largely the value of its lost sources. The most important of the lost sources for Richard's reign is the one that lies behind the Anonimalle account of the Peasants' Revolt. This is thought by most scholars to be a London chronicle, written shortly after 1382, lifted entire by the compiler and interpolated into his history. It is more dramatic than anything else in Anonimalle and points toward an author in close touch with the events he is describing, probably an eyewitness for at least some of them. A.F. Pollard suggests as the author of these lifted parts John Scardeburgh, who in 1387 held prebend in the chapel of Saint Mary and the Holy Angels, York, and can perhaps be identified with a clerk of that name in chancery. 51 The value of this interpolated London story of the uprising is hard to overestimate. Steel calls it "the best single source for the events in London". Charles Oman says it contains

of the University of Manchester, No. CLXXV, Historical Series, No. XLV (Manchester, 1927). so Galbraith, Introduction, Anonimalle Chronicle, p. xxiv. si A.F. Pollard, "Authorship and Value of Anonimalle ChronicleEnglish Historical Review, LI11 (1938), 577-605.

APPENDIX A

229

far more detailed facts about the rising, many of them unrecorded elsewhere, than any other chronicle. George Kriehn agrees, calling this portion of the Anonimalle the "most valuable of surviving contemporary accounts" of the Revolt. 5 2 Of the pre-Yorkist English chronicles, altogether the most flattering to Richard II and the most denigrating to his enemies is the Dieulacres Chronicle,s3 despite the fact that the portion of this work written after the accession of Henry IV is pro-Lancastrian. This chronicle, written in Latin, covers the years 1337 to 1403 and was apparently composed at Dieulacres Abbey in Staffordshire, just southeast of Cheshire. There are two authors, both anonymous. The first, a strong partisan of Richard, is responsible for the section f r o m 1337 to 1400, which he probably composed soon after 1403; the second, favorable to Henry IV, apparently completed the section from 1400 to 1403 by the end of 1408. Clarke and Galbraith conjecture that the latter author may have been a clerk in Henry's service who entered Dieulacres Abbey (patronized by Henry) after the revolution of 1399. 5 4 At any rate, at the point at which the later chronicler takes up the work of the earlier, he registers a protest against what has gone before, saying that his predecessor commended things that ought to have been blamed and blamed things that ought to have been commended. The Ricardian author, as the writer of the earlier section of the Dieulacres Chronicle may be called, probably transcribed popular versified histories for the first part of his work. But from the accession of Richard he seems to have written independently, accepting the well-known facts generally construed to Richard's discredit and giving them a royalist interpretation. His point of view about the upheaval of 1386-88 and of 1397 is that a subject is always wrong to defy his king; that Gloucester and his supporters were therefore rebels who deserved punishment and the king was only serving as the instrument of God when he brought them t o justice. When he comes to describe 52 See Steel, p. 80; Charles Oman, Appendix V, containing an English translation of the section of Anonimalle Chronicle on the Peasants' Revolt, in The Great Revolt of 1381 (Oxford, 1906), p. 186; Kriehn, American Historical Review, VII, 254. 53 Dieulacres Chronicle [portion 1 3 8 1 - 1 4 0 3 ] , ed. M.V.Clarke and V.H. Galbraith, in "The Deposition of Richard II", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XIV (1930), 164-181. 54 Clarke and Galbraith, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XIV, 133.

230

APPKND1X A

the return of Henry and the duke's movements in and about Chester, this author is a firsthand authority. Clarke and Galbraith call his testimony for this period the unique and pathetic contemporary statement made on English soil of the case of those who believed in Richard. 5 5 The monk pictures the king as misled by his own bad counselors and betrayed by a deceitful Henry. The Dieulacres Chronicle, along with Creton's French history and Trai'son, which will be discussed below, agree on some important details of the events of 1399 and together cast much doubt on the official version of the process of deposition given in the Lancastrian chronicles and in the Rolls of Parliament. The author of the Lancastrian part of Dieulacres is also an original authority for the three years he covers. He subscribes to the usual Lancastrian theory of Richard's death—voluntary starvation. The final royalist chronicle written in England before Yorkist times belongs, like Dieulacres, to northern England. The Kirkstall Chronicle,56 running from 1231 through 1400, was written in Latin by an unknown monk in Kirkstall Abbey, Yorkshire. The chronicle breaks into two sections; the first, ending at the close of 1398, was apparently written in early 1399, before Richard's fall; the second, which goes back to 1396 and then comes down through 1400, was composed around 1401, after Henry's coronation. The chronicler bases his material chiefly on his own personal knowledge, plus a Franciscan source and a few official documents, such as the questions to the justiciars and the form of Richard's abdication. The composition of the Kirkstall history is a classic example of how a medieval chronicler shifted his prejudices to conform to the changing fortunes of the day. The original plan of the author, apparently, was to balance the two important periods of Richard's reign, 1387-88 and 1397-99, against each other in order to show how the appellants' victory was offset by the king's just revenge and reestablishment of control. In a rhetorical figure, Richard is described as a strong king asserting his royal power to disperse his enemies and to bring the kingdom back to order. But by the time the monk picked

55

Ibid.,

p. 136.

56 Kirkstall Chronicle [portion 1 3 5 5 - 1 4 0 0 ] , ed. M.V. Clarke and N. DenholmYoung, "The Kirkstall Chronicle, 1 3 5 5 - 1 4 0 0 " , Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XV ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 121-137. This history is not to be confused with the so-called "Kirkstall Chronicle" mentioned by Kingsford, p. 35.

APPENDIX A

231

up his pen to complete his story, things had turned out very differently from what he had anticipated. Richard had not been able to maintain his rule, and Henry was on the throne. In order to save face to some degree, the chronicler recast the last two years of what he had written previously and told the rest of his story as best he could according to the Lancastrian way of looking at things. But occasionally his real sentiments slip in, in spite of himself, as when he comments that God only knows how Richard died at Pontefract. Pre-Yorkist French Sympathizers with Richard The French chronicles of Richard's reign were little known in England during the ascendancy of the House of Lancaster; but from the time that Edward IV first assumed the throne in 1461, they were freely used, not so much to defend Richard as to denigrate the Lancastrians. They introduced into English literature a number of stories hostile to Henry IV that came to be accepted as a part of historical tradition. Jean Créton's Histoire du roy d'Angleterre Richart [//], traitant particulièrement la rebellion de ses subiectz. . . [7J99], 5 7 was apparently the first to introduce the account of Richard's betrayal and seizure by an emissary of Henry on the road between Conway and Flint. This chronicle was used by Holinshed, who called it a French pamphlet belonging to Dr. Dee; by Stow; and, according to Matthew Black, 58 by Shakespeare himself. The author of this metrical chronicle signed his name at the end of one of the manuscripts of his work, MS No. 275, Fonds de St. Victor, now in the Harleian collection at the British Museum. Immediately after the sentence in which the signature appears, there follows an epistle written by Créton in which he expresses joy at Richard's escape from prison (sic) and astonishment that the king could have 57 J e a n Créton, Histoire du roy d'Angleterre Richart [III, traitant particulièrement la rebellion de ses subiectz . . . 113991, ed. and trans. Rev. J o h n Webb, u n d e r the heading "Translation of a French Metrical History of t h e Deposition of King Richard the Second, written by a C o n t e m p o r a r y , and comprising the Period f r o m his last Expedition into Ireland to his D e a t h " , in Archaeologia, XX (1824), 1-423. ^ 58 Matthew Black (ed.), The Life and Death of King Richard the Second, A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Hyder Edward Rollins (Philadelphia, 1955), Appendix, p. 405.

232

APPENDIX A

survived the bad treatment he received there. After the epistle comes a ballad, also composed by Creton, urging the French nobles to arms against Henry. As Webb, the translator of Creton, points out, these sentiments must have been expressed about the time of the preparation of the French army that landed in Wales, joined Owen Glendower, and advanced to Worcester — that is, early in 1405. 59 Jean Creton was apparently a French squire who, with another Frenchman, a knight, was granted permission by Charles VI to accompany the Earl of Salisbury to Ireland in the suite of Richard II. They undertook the journey, says the French squire (p. 60), "for the sake of merriment and song". The two friends returned to England with Richard and remained with him, according to Creton, through the early days of his captivity. At Chester, upon request, they were granted by Bolingbroke protection on the march to London and permission,to return to France. It was at the instance of Salisbury, writes Cr6ton (p. 239), that he undertook to give an account of what he knew, in order to show the disloyalty and treachery suffered by the king. His narrative covers the nine months, approximately, from the Irish expedition to the death of Richard (late May, 1399, to mid-February, 1400). The history was probably composed around 1401 or 1405. From Richard's sailing for Ireland until his imprisonment in Chester Castle, Cretan's Histoire is an eyewitness account, written in first person. After his return to France, Creton relied, he asserts (p. 190), upon information given him by a clerk whom Henry had taken with him from Paris and who later returned to France. The history by Creton is wholeheartedly and even passionately devoted to the cause of the king. Richard is placed in the role of Jesus, the martyr; and Bolingbroke is likened to Pontius Pilate, the betrayer. Yet the faults of the king are not palliated. He is often shown as unsteady in temper, "pale with anger" (for example, see Creton, p. 43), and inclined to favoritism. Creton expresses abhorrence of the treason by which Richard fell and manifests strong national prejudice against the English, whom he brands as traitors and opportunists, holding with whoever is most powerful or makes the best show, without regard to reason or justice. The author seems to be generally trustworthy; the speeches and soliloquies put into the mouth of the king apparently represent actual occurrences; and, when 59

Webb, Archaeologia,

XX (1824), 189, note z.

APPENDIX A

233

he comes to the interview between Richard and Henry, the chronicler lays aside metre and turns to prose in order to approximate more nearly the actual words spoken on the occasion. The narrative ends with praise of Richard and an expression of doubt as to whether he is actually dead, as his enemies say. There is another French chronicle, for this period even more important than Créton's history, that brought into English literature new light on the final scenes in the drama of Richard's career. This is

Chronicque de la traison et mort de Richart Deux, roy Dengleterre.60 To it the Yorkist and Tudor historians owe the first chronicle record of the following points: Gloucester's plot at Saint Albans to depose the king; Hereford's charges against Norfolk, leading to the duel; the Bishop of Carlisle's courageous defense of his sovereign at the trial of Richard; the parliamentary decree that the king should die if there were a rising in his favor; and the story of the Exton murder. Traison is made use of by Caxton and Fabyan, through the medium of the Lambeth Bruf, by Holinshed, who calls it an old French pamphlet belonging t o John Stow; by Stow, Hall, and Shakespeare. Still extant are at least eighteen known manuscripts of this piece, which were perhaps dispersed throughout France in order to arouse national spirit against the English. The manuscript used by Williams, editor of Traison, is No. 904, Fonds St. Victor, formerly No. 1188, in Bibliothèque du Roi at Paris. The author of Traison is unknown. Williams conjectures that he may have been the French clerk whom Henry brought with him from Paris and who later furnished Créton with information about what happened after the latter had left England. This clerk was apparently connected with the Benedictine Monastery of Saint-Denys, Williams believes. 61 Steel suggests that the author was perhaps a French clerk who had come to England in 1396 as a member of the household of young Queen Isabella. 62 Traïson covers the three-year period from 1397 through March, 1400. It is evident from the graphic descriptions that this narrative is in large part an eyewitness account. From 1397 till the king's departure for Ireland in May, 1399, the author apparently had special knowledge. From the return to England through the

60 Chronique de la traison et mort de Richart Deux, roy Dengleterre, trans. Benjamin Williams (London, 1846). 61 Williams, Preface, Traison, pp. xxxii-xxxiii. 62 Steel, p. 299.

ed. and

234

APPENDIX A

capture of Richard, he obviously borrowed from Créton. The march to London is taken from Créton, too, or else the two chroniclers borrowed back and forth from each other. The rest of the narrative is an independent account of first-class importance. The chronicler seems to have completed his work sometime before 1412. The author of Trai'son is most sympathetic to Richard, but generally less passionately so than Créton, despite the fact that he chooses to include a moving account of Richard's final leave-taking of his child queen, in April, 1399. This chronicle shares with the other French histories a strong nationalist proclivity. Closely allied to both Trai'son and Créton's narrative is another history written in France, Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys, 63 chronicling the reign of Charles VI of France, 1380-1422, but also taking up the reign of Richard II. It is written in Latin, but is here called by the title it received from its French translator, Bellaguet. The name of the author is unknown. At the beginning of his work he identifies himself as a religious of the Abbey of Saint-Denys and says he earlier wrote a history of Charles V of France (not now extant). He next undertook to write a chronicle of Charles VI's reign, at the order of his abbot, and may even have been sent t o follow the court of Charles in the capacity of royal historiographer, for, since the reign of King Phillipe Auguste (1180-1223), it had been the custom of the French kings to keep in their presence a religious historiographer who should chronicle events as they happened. It is possible, according to M. de Barante, that the Monk of Saint-Denys' history of Charles VI was destined to serve as notes for the composition of the appropriate part of the great Chronicles of Saint-Denys, which later became almost an institution of the French monarchy, each king traditionally entrusting his reputation, as well as his ashes, to the monks of this abbey. 6 4 Chronique de Saint-Denys was probably completed by 1423. It is of secondary importance for the reign of Richard. In writing a contemporary account, the author as far as possible transcribed events as they passed. For English history, he seems to have depended largely upon the authors of Traison and Créton, though he was more impartial toward Richard than either of them. The monk expresses 63 Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys, contenant le règne de Charles de 1380 a 1422, M I , trans, (into French] M. L. Bellaguet (Paris, 1839-40). 64 M. de Barante, Introduction, Saint-Denys, I, i-ii.

VI,

APPENDIX A

235

great horror at the treachery of the English people toward their sovereign. Of all French histories, by far the best known to English readers is Froissart's Chroniques,65 This chronicle covers the period from the end of Edward II's reign to the coronation of Henry IV (1326-1400); it deals with events in France, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Flanders and also gives particulars relevant to affairs in Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Russia, Turkey, and Africa. Jean Froissart was born in Valenciennes, France, about 1338. His first work seems to have been in the commercial field, though of just what nature he does not say. He next studied to be a clerk and became then canon and treasurer of the collegiate church in Chimay, France. But Froissart, of course, is best known as historian and poet. He pursued his historical research and his writing for forty years, beginning at about the age of twenty, when upon the urgent request of his first patron, Robert de Namur, lord of Beaufort, he undertook to write a history of the wars of his own times, particularly those that followed the battle of Poitiers. From then on, he had a succession of patrons, including Philippa of Hainault, queen of Edward III; Wincelaus de Luxembourg, duke of Brabant; Guy, count de Blois; and Gaston Phoebus, count de Foix and de Beam. Froissart's patrons encouraged his writing and endowed his travels to gather data. And he spent many years traveling, visiting various parts of France and Italy, Spain, Flanders, Scotland, Wales, and England. Several times the French chronicler visited England. In 1361, he presented to Queen Philippa part of his history and was made the clerk of her chamber. For the queen he wrote many amorous verses, and at her expense he made journeys from England to several countries for information. On the day that Richard was born in Bordeaux, November 1, 1367, Froissart was in that town; and he accompanied the Black Prince to Dax, Spain, but was not on the rest of the expedition to Spain. In 1367 and 1368, he was back in England and joined the company escorting Lionel, duke of Clarence, to Milan for the prince's marriage. Chaucer and Petrarch were also at this wedding. Froissart's final visit to England occurred during 1394-95. At 65 Sir John Froissart, Chronicles of England, France, Spain and the Adjoining Countries, from the Latter Part of the reign of Edward if to the Coronation of Henry IV, I-II, trans, from the French Editions by Thomas Johnes (London,

1839).

236

APPENDIX A

Canterbury he attached himself to the party of the king, who had come to give thanks at the shrine for his recent successes in Ireland. Following the royal company to Leeds Castle, the chronicler obtained much information about the Irish wars. At Leeds he was heartily received by the Duke of York and was later introduced to Richard himself and given access to the council which the king had called at Eltham. After the deliberations of the council were over, Froissart presented Richard with a handsome copy of a romance he had brought for him, and the king accepted it warmly. Three months later, when the French visitor left the court and England, he received valuable gifts from the king. In all his travels Froissart, if he himself were not present at an event, sought out eyewitnesses on both sides and extracted f r o m them full and graphic details. Of his own method he wrote: . . . I made inquiry after those ancient knights and squires who had been present at these deeds of arms . . . I sought also for heralds of good repute, to verify and confirm what I might have heard elsewhere of these matters. In this manner have I collected the materials for this noble history. . . , 66 It was the practice of the chronicler to take notes from these eyewitnesses as soon after the time of the events as possible; then, within a few years, he wrote from his notes and his memory. Most of the actual composition was apparently done at Valenciennes. Froissart divided his Chronicles into four books, or volumes — a division which is followed in all manuscripts and printed editions, although the books do not begin and end in exactly the same places in the various manuscripts and copies. Chapter divisions and their headings within each book are found only in the printed copies and vary from edition to edition. Book I as a whole extends from 1326 to 1379; the part presented to Queen Philippa was probably composed between 1357 and 1361; the remaining portion was composed f r o m about 1379 to 1382. Book II repeats the last three years of Book I, giving further details, and closes in December, 1385, with the peace between the men of Ghent and the Duke of Burgundy; this book was written between 1385 and 1388. Book III repeats and expands the 66 Froissart, from a Preface at the head of Book IV in several Froissart manuscripts, as quoted in "Memoir of the Life of Froissart", Froissart, Chronicles, trans. Johnes, I, xx.

APPENDIX A

237

last four years of Book II and ends in 1389 with the three-year truce concluded between France and England; it was composed from 1390 to 1392. Book IV covers the period from 1389 to the death of Richard in 1400, the first section apparently being composed in 1392 and the rest about 1399 and 1400. Froissart's habit of repeating material can be disconcerting to his reader. Indeed, the chronological order is not clear throughout the work, and the effect is sometimes a confused mixture of events that passed at different times and in different places. But the charcteristic of Froissart that does most to reduce the validity of his history is a strong tendency to idealize chivalry. The French historian's purpose is to give examples of high courage and noble adventure in arms. To achieve this purpose, he often heightens reality with poetic touches and invents incidents he thinks might have occurred. On the whole, therefore, while the basic facts of the history are generally reliable, the trustworthiness of the details is impaired by the author's moral and rhetorical purposes. Despite these weaknesses, Froissart has made an important contribution to English historical sources. His chronicle is an original, contemporary account based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and attempting to give all sides of a story. It is an entertaining and graphic record of the fourteenth century ; in fact, it is hardly too much to say that no more vivid account exists of any age. In dealing with the important episodes of Richard's reign, Froissart's records are of unequal value. He perhaps idealizes the king's conduct during the Peasants' Revolt; his account of 1386-88 is confused, and that of 1399 is based on erroneous testimony; he does not hazard even a guess as to the cause of the king's death. But his description of both 1397 and 1398 are full and valuable, and in all episodes he is relatively unbiased except for his outspoken bitterness toward Gloucester. There is no reason to reject the chronicler's own statement of his attempt to be impartial, given as follows when Froissart is expressing his feelings towards the king and the king's death: [When the chronicler was with Richard, the king] . . . made me good cheer, because in my youth, I had been secretary to king Edward, his grandfather, and the lady Philippa of Hainault, queen of England. When I took my leave of him at Windsor, he presented me, by one of his knights called Sir John Golofre, a silver gilt goblet, weighing two full marcs, filled with one hundred nobles . . . . I am

238

APPENDIX A

bound to pray to God for him, and sorry am I to write of his death; but as I have dictated and augmented this history to the utmost of my power, it became necessary to mention it, that what became of him might be known. 6 7 Froissart died about 1410, a decade later than Richard. The Church of Saint Monegunda of Chimay claims to hold his bones. Forming an immediate and intended continuation of Froissart is the Chroniques de Monstrelet,68 beginning on Easter Day, 1400, about where Froissart left off, ai)d extending to the death of the Duke of Burgundy in 1467. This chronicle embraces the history of France; chief events in Flanders, England, Scotland, and Ireland; and, more succinctly, happenings in Italy, Germany, Hungary, and Poland. Enguerrand de Monstrelet, probably born in Picardy between 1390 and 1395, was a nobleman, perhaps of illegitimate birth. According to his own account, he was residing in Cambrai, Picardy, when he composed his history. Here he held the offices of collector of church dues payable to the Duke of Burgundy; bailiff, then governor of Cambrai; and finally bailiff of Wallaincourt. He died in July, 1453. Monstrelet's purpose in writing his chronicles was similar to that of Froissart. In his own words, his aim was: . . . handing down to posterity the grand and magnanimous feats of a r m s . . . for the instruction and information of those who in a just cause may be desirous of honourably exercising their prowess in arms; and also to celebrate the glory and renown of those who by strength of courage and bodily vigour have gallantly distinguished themselves. 69 The chronicler's method of gathering material was also similar to Froissart's. He consulted eyewitnesses and participants in actions: military men, kings-at-arms, heralds, lords resident on estates, and members of both political parties (House of Orleans and House of Burgundy). M. Dacier points out the interesting fact that, in his whole 67 Froissart, II, 709. 68 Enguerrand de Monstrelet, The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet; containing an Account of the Cruel Civil Wars between the Houses of Orleans and Burgundy; of the Possession of Paris and Normandy by the English; Their Expulsion Thence; and of Other Memorable Events That Happened in the Kingdom of France, as well as in Other Countries, I, trans. Thomas Johncs (London, 1853). 69

Monstrelet, Prologue, Chronicles, trans. Johnes, I, 1.

APPENDIX A

239

history, Monstrelet claims only once to speak from his own knowledge and that is when he describes how Pucelle d'Orleans was made prisoner before Compiégne; the chronicler himself was present at the converstaion between Philip, duke of Burgundy, and Joan of Arc. 7 0 Like Froissart, Monstrelet did the actual writing of each portion of his history some time after he had collected information for that part. Always more than a year elapsed after the event had happened before he began to arrange the material for his chronicle. The composing of the chronicle, therefore - that is, of the part written by Monstrelet must have continued off and on during most of the early half of the fifteenth century. Monstrelet's Chronicles is divided into three books. Apparently only Books I and II, f r o m 1400 to 1444, are the genuine work of Monstrelet. Book III, 1444 to 1467 — or certainly the part from 1453 on - was written by another hand. Later the history was continued anonymously up to 1516. As a chronicler, Monstrelet shares with Froissart a number of faults. Both repeat and expand material when they gain further knowledge after first relating an event. When passing from one country to another, b o t h introduce events of an earlier date concurrently with those of a later date, without mentioning the matter. And both disfigure proper names and make mistakes in chronology. Further, Monstrelet makes his chronology confusing by beginning the year on Easter Day and closing it on Easter Eve. But Monstrelet does not share Froissart's chief weakness as an historian. He neither glamorizes the truth nor invents tales. He carefully distinguishes between facts of which he is certain and those of which he is doubtful. In proof of his statements, he includes letters, edicts, negotiations, treaties, and the like. Monstrelet is favorable to the House of Burgundy, that is, disaffected towards the crown of France; but he does not omit the evil deeds of the Duke of Burgundy. This chronicle begins, as said, in 1400, after the death of King Richard; its relevancy to the story of Richard lies in its record of how the French nobles felt about Henry's usurpation of the throne and his treatment of the deposed king.

TO M. Dacier, "Life of Monstrelet, with an Essay on Introduction, Monstrelet, Chronicles, trans. Johnes, 1, xxiii.

His Chronicles".

240

APPENDIX A YORKISTS

The term "Yorkist" as used throughout this book refers to a point of view that is in general mildly defensive, or at least tolerant, of Richard and at the same time hostile to Henry; for the most part, the Yorkist chronicles were composed during the reign of the first Yorkist ruler, Edward IV (1461 to 1470; 1471 to 1483). The men who wrote these histories have little praise for Richard; and, if they find in an episode nothing that can be interpreted as derogatory to Henry, they tend to give little space to the incident. It is interesting to note that six of the seven Yorkist histories dealt with here were written in English or French; by the time of Edward IV, the vernacular was well on its way to displacing Latin as the language of chronicle literature. The only French chronicle belonging to the Yorkist school is Wavrin's Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istoires de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nommé Engleterre.71 The portions of this history including the reign of Richard II represent the earliest written of the Yorkist narratives. These portions (1377-1413) belong to the latter years of Henry VI, the last Lancastrian ruler, rather than to the Yorkist regime; but the history is definitely Yorkist in point of view. It forms a natural link with Trai'son and the chronicles of Froissart and Monstrelet, upon which it is largely based for the reign of Richard II. Jehan de Wavrin was born in Artois, a former province of northern France, about 1394, the illegitimate son of a family of heroes. He was patronized by his nephew, Monseigneur Waleran, lord of Wavrin, to whom he dedicated his history. With Waleran he fought on the French side in the battle of Agincourt and in 1417 accompanied the Duke of Burgundy on his expedition to Paris against the Orleanists. But when, at the instigation of the dauphin, the duke was assassinated in 1419, Wavrin joined the duke's son, Philip the Good, on the English side - a position which Philip had taken in order to avenge his father's death. From 1420 to 1435 Wavrin was in the service of the English and later related the successes of the Maid of Orleans impartially. 71 John de Wavrin, A Collection of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain, Now Called England, II, trans. Sir William Hardy and Edward L.C.P. Hardy, Rolls Series (London. 1887). Since the section of this history dealing with the reign of Richard II is not printed in the Rolls Series and is not readily available elsewhere, this book presents only the death of Richard and other mentions of him given by Wavrin in his account of the reign of Henry IV.

APPFNDIX A

241

In 1437, when approaching age began to make it difficult for him to follow the profession of arms, Wavrin settled permanently at Lisle (now Lille). Most of the rest of his life was apparently given to collecting material for his histories and writing them. In 1467 he was in England at the court of Edward IV, and in 1469 he visited the Earl of Warwick at Calais in order to gather information. Furthermore, Wavrin must have been in constant touch with England during these years through the Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. The chronicler died about 1474. In the complete Chronicles there are six volumes, written over a period of more than twenty-five years and running all together f r o m Albina - that is, from the first fabled settlement in Britain — through the expedition undertaken by Edward IV against the Bastard of Falconbridge after the defeat and death of the Prince of Wales and Queen Margaret at Tewkesbury in 1471. The first four volumes, apparently compiled between 1445 and 1455, go down to the death of Henry IV, the first extending to 1337, the second to 1377, the third t o 1387, and the fourth to 1413. A fifth volume, completed soon after the accession of Edward IV in 1461, brings the narrative down t o 1443; and the last volume, probably finished soon after 1471, breaks off at Edward's recovery of the crown and the death of Henry VI. For his material up to the fourteenth century, Wavrin compiled ancient histories of England, including an Anglo-Norman metrical history of the earliest colonization, Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, and some version of the English Brut. For the fourteenth century, he also used the Brut and a chronicle of London, but depended mostly upon Froissart, whom he sometimes copied outright and sometimes acknowledged. The reign of Richard II comes chiefly from Froissart, Trai'son, and the Chronicles of Saint-Denys. Also, f r o m 1400 on as long as the history of Monstrelet lasts, Wavrin is much indebted to his contemporary chronicler. But, for the years of Wavrin's maturity - and especially after 1458 — much of his narrative is based on personal observation or the testimony of eyewitnesses; he actually took part in many events he describes. On the whole, Wavrin's Chronicles is a comparatively impartial account of English history. The French writer perhaps pictures Richard's behavior after his capture as being more courageous than any other Yorkist chronicler does. Besides Wavrin, two other Yorkist writers left signed chronicles to

242

APPENDIX A

posterity, John Capgrave and John Hardyng. Both have already been discussed under Lancastrian chroniclers; 72 but the former composed a later history dedicated to Edward IV, and the latter revised his first edition to make it acceptable to the same Yorkist monarch. Capgrave's Chronicle of England,73 probably composed between 1462 and 1464, begins with the creation and gives a general history of the world, gradually narrowing its scope until the accession of Henry III of England in 1216; after this it confines itself almost entirely to English history, which it brings down to 1417. Here it ends abruptly. The portions up to the thirteenth century are very scanty. In fact, Capgrave, aware of this meagerness, entered the years in a series of consecutive columns and explained that he was leaving the vellum bare opposite the years for which he was unable to find any records so that anyone who had access to such material could fill it in. For these earlier parts, his sources are chiefly the Bible, Saint Jerome, Isidore, Eusebius, and the like. For the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the chronicler is largely indebted to the Brut and the Polychronicon with its continuations; the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV he derived rather closely from Historia Anglicana and Annates, though there is some independent material. In the parts of his work for which he is responsible himself, he is apparently careful and accurate. Although he remains mildly favorable toward Henry IV in his Chronicle of England, Capgrave achieves something of a Yorkist tone by avoiding almost all direct criticism of Richard; by his uncertainty as to the cheerfulness of the king's resignation; and by recording the theory of enforced starvation of Richard and apparently preferring it to the theory of voluntary starvation, which he also mentions. John Hardyng began revising the first version of his metrical chronicle shortly after he had presented it to Henry VI in 1457. He wrote a fresh dedication, to Richard of York, and then, after the death of York in 1460, presented this second version before its completion to Edward IV, in 1463. The revised edition of the Chronicle,74 from earliest times to 1464, was completed by late

72 See above, pp. 217-221. 73 John Capgrave, The Chronicle of England, ed. Francis Charles Hingeston, Rolls Series (London, 1858). 74 John Hardyng, The Chronicle, together with The Continuation by Richard Grafton, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1812).

APPENDIX A

243

1464. Hardyng was eighty-six at the time and must have died soon afterwards. The revised version is much shorter than the earlier one, containing only about two-thirds the number of stanzas in the first. Changes other then abbreviation were chiefly due to an altered purpose on Hardyng's part, which was to produce a history acceptable to a Yorkist ruler rather than a Lancastrian. In pursuance of his aim, he inserted prose additions, such as the accounts of Bolingbroke's promise to the Percys not to seize the crown and of the scheme to manufacture a false hereditary title for Henry; he added lines of verse depreciating Henry; and he altered the phraseology extensively. Hardyng's two versions are mostly derived from the same sources. In marginal notes to his first version, he says he based his history on what he had heard or seen and on Master Norham's Chronicle. The Norham Chronicle, Kingsford thinks, was a copy of the Brut,ls several versions of which the chronicler seems to have used. For the concluding years of the revised edition, Hardyng depended merely on common knowledge. There is little original in either edition except for isolated passages based on the author's own knowledge, mostly in connection with the exploits of his patrons, the Percys and the Umfravilles. Of the Yorkist chronicles, three might be called versions of the Brut. The first section of A Short English Chronicle,76 for example, is nothing more than a brief abridgment of the Brut from Albina to 1413; it contains nothing original. The second part of this history, which is really three short chronicles transcribed consecutively, is based on Lydgate's verses on the kings of England; what is said about Richard is trivial. The final section of the composite narrative, 1189-1465, is indebted to one of the regular London Chronicles down through the reign of Henry V; for the reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV it is in part an independent authority of some value. A Short English Chronicle was probably composed soon after 1465. It is Yorkist in point of view, trying to soften the picture of Richard and giving a Yorkist version of Henry's seizure of the throne.

An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV,

75 Kingsford, p. 148. 76 A Short English Chronicle, in Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, ed. James Gairdner, Camden Society, New Series, No. 28 (London, 1880), pp. 1-80.

244

APPENDIX A

Henry V, and Henry VI,11 1377 to 1461, known as Davies' Chronicle, is called by Kingsford a version of the Brut. 7 8 Although, down to 1401, this anonymous history sharing a common source with the Continuation of Eulogium 79 - is based on a Latin chronicle, perhaps of Canterbury, it adds matter from the Brut', and from 1401 to 1450 it is based on several versions of the Bruf, the remainder follows a London Chronicle. Davies' Chronicle, composed between 1461 and 1471, apparently makes corrections to the histories it uses and adds, especially toward the end, a number of passages independent of any known source some of them rather lengthy. This chronicle is typically Yorkist, being less critical of Richard than the Lancastrians and more critical of the Gloucester party and giving a decidedly Yorkist version of the deposition. The peculiar version of the Brut found in a single copy in Lambeth MS 84 8 0 extends from mythical times to 1475. It seems to have been composed in 1478-79. This chronicle contains much unique material, mostly of a legendary nature. Its Yorkist character is attested by the treachery it ascribes to Gloucester and by its seeming preference for the Peter Exton theory of Richard's death, based apparently on Traison. The account of the king's murder represents perhaps the first telling of this story in an English history. Among the last monastic chronicles written in Latin on English soil are the late Continuations of the spurious Croyland Abbey Chronicle, which was attributed to Ingulph and in part to Peter of Blois. 81 The spurious history itself begins at about 655 and closes with 1117; it was probably written in the thirteenth or early fourteenth century. There are three Continuations, extending all together from 1135 to 1486. Only the first Continuation includes the reign of Richard II. This extension of the Croyland Chronicle runs from 1135 to 1470,

An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI, ed. Rev. John Silvester Davies, Camden Society, 1st Series (London, 1856). 78 Kingsford, p. 127. 79 See above, p. 213. 80 Continuation of the Brut (Lambeth MS 84), in the Brut, Part II, ed. Brie, F.FTS, O.S., No. 136, pp. 585-604. Only extracts from Lambeth MS 84, for 1397 to 1400, are printed in this text. 81 Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations by Peter of Blois and Anonymous Writers, trans. Henry T. Riley (London, 1854).

APPENDIX A

245

but the manuscript is honeycombed with hiatuses. From 1450 on, and especially from 1461, there is much independent matter, strongly colored by Yorkist sympathies. But for the times of Richard II, this is not a contemporary account and seems to imitate the Lancastrian tone of its source, which is apparently some popular history like the Brut. It does, however, give a Yorkist version of the fall of the king.

NONPARTISANS

By the close of the reign of Edward IV, the Wars of the Roses had been over for a dozen years, and the Houses of York and Lancaster were soon to be merged in the Tudor dynasty. With no urgent political need to support the White Rose or the Red, chroniclers could afford t o be impartial. William Caxton and Robert Fabyan attempted to write as nonpartisans. They tried to harmonize the inconsistent accounts of the earlier chroniclers; but this they did not succeed in doing. What they did accomplish was to avoid obvious prejudices for the most part, to set side by side the contradictory records, and to cite their sources. But even this was a definite step in the advance toward the reasoned chronicle written to a thesis that was to be associated with the name of Polydore Vergil in the first half of the sixteenth century. William Caxton (1422-91) is well-known as the first English printer. He was a mercer by trade and from 1441 to 1471 followed his occupation in the Low Countries, where he was made governor of the Merchant Adventurers for that area. He resided in Bruges and there learned the art of printing. Upon his return to England, Caxton set up a printing press and began t o translate books into English and print them. He had a thorough knowledge of French and knew Latin. Around 1469 he was in the employment of the Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. To Caxton we owe two histories, both written in English. The earlier of these, Chronicles of England, generally known as Cax ton's Chronicle, appeared in 1480 and thus has the honor of being the first printed English history. But the printer can claim no credit as being the author, for Caxton simply followed the main version of the Brut, which ends in 1461. The later history, used here as a source for Richard's reign, is the Continuation of the Polychronicon which Caxton called the Eighth

246

APPENDIX A

Book of the Polychronicon. 82 When in 1482 he printed Trevisa's English translation of Higden, he compiled this Continuation from 1357 to 1461. Of his purpose Caxton has the following to say: Thenne folowyng this fore wreton booke of Policronycon I have emprysed to ordeyne this newe booke by the suffraunce of Almyghty God to contynue the sayd werk bryefly, and to sette in hystoriall thynges, suche as I have conne gete, from the tyme that he lefte, that was in the yere of oure Lord a thousand thre honderde and seven and f y f t y , vnto the yere of our sayd Lord thousand four honderd and syxty, and to the fyrst yere of the regne of kyng Edward the fourth. 8 3 Caxton cites his sources as being "a lytel booke named Fasciculus temporum and another called Aureus de universo". 84 The former, written by Caspar Rolewinck, was used by the original compiler of the Brut\ the latter is unidentified. The truth is that Caxton was indebted to several versions of the Brut, but especially to the common version ending in 1419 and to the main version closing in 1461, and perhaps to some of the London Chronicles. For his own times, he makes a few independent additions. In recounting the episodes of Richard's reign, Caxton achieves a commendable objectivity; if anything, he leans a little toward the king. Robert Fabyan (d. ca. 1513) was a respected London merchant and member of the Drapers Company. He was elected alderman of London and was also sheriff in 1493. Though undoubtedly a rich man, he resigned from the office of alderman in 1502, on the pretext of poverty, to avoid having to take the mayoralty, the expenses of which he considered too great for a man with a family to support. He probably then retired to a mansion in Essex, the home of his forefathers. In addition to his financial and civic interests, Fabyan had a love of learning. He knew French and, for a layman, was skilled in Latin. With these assets and with ample opportunity to consult old histories, he 82 William Caxton, Continuation of the Polychronicon, Appendix IV, in Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, monachi Cestrensis, together with the English Translations of John Trevisa and of an Unknown Writer of the Fifteenth Century, ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, Rolls Series (London, 1882), VIII, 522-587. 83 Caxton, Higden's Polychronicon, VIII, 5 2 2 . 84 Ibid., VIII, 353.

APPENDIX A

247

began the task of compiling his "Concordance of Chronicles", as he called it. The work was completed in 1504 and printed in 1516 by Richard Pynson under the title of The New Chronicles of England and France. 85 Fabyan divided his history into seven sections, appending a copy of verses as an epilogue to each section, under the caption of the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin. The first six portions cover the period from Brutus to the Norman Conquest; the last section extends from the Conquest to 1485. A number of continuations were added by other hands, bringing the history, in its fourth edition, down to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1558. Fabyan's history is mostly a stringing together of older chronicles. He himself makes no pretense to originality, but cites numerous sources, some of them vaguely named. For English history of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, he used one or more versions of the Chronicles of London, especially The Great Chronicle and the Brut. There are a few independent additions, which become more frequent as the author approaches his own times. For the history of France, Fabyan is especially indebted to Robert Gaguin's Compendium super Francorum gestis. On the whole, Fabyan is impartial; but occasionally a Lancastrian tone slips into his story. He was anti-monastic, and the inclusion in his history of the Lollards' Bill of 1410 may have caused the traditional censure of his work by Cardinal Wolsey. Though Fabyan's New Chronicles of England and France is the first printed English history of the sixteenth century, it is in reality the last of the fifteenthcentury chronicles, the link between medieval and Renaissance historiography. It is valuable as the medium through which the sixteenth-century writers became familiar with the Chronicles of London.

85 Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England and France in Two Parts, Named by Himself The Concordance of Histories, Reprinted from Pynson's Edition of 1516, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1811).

APPENDIX B A L P H A B E T I C A L LISTING OF CHRONICLES BY "SCHOOLS"

(with some indication of their authenticity for 1377-1400 and their point of view toward the king)

I. THE LANCASTRIAN DETRACTORS OF RICHARD Annates

Ricardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti (1392-1406); composed in early 15th cen., probably before 1408. Anonymous: written at St. Albans Abbey. Contemporary account. Lancastrian

The Brut, a Continuation of, from Cambridge MS Kk I 12 (1377-1419); composed ca. 1430. Anonymous. Contemporary, account, at least in part; based largely on a London Chronicle. Lancastrian The Brut, a Continuation of, from Harleian MS 53 (1377-1436); composed ca. 1453. Anonymous. Perhaps contemporary in part; perhaps shares common source with Continuation of Eulogium. Lancastrian Chronica Regum Angliae (from Brutus to 1420); probably composed ca. 1423. Otterbourne, Thomas, fi. 1400; of northern origin. Contemporary; apparently based on St. Albans chronicles. Lancastrian Chronicle (first version),(earliest times to 1437); completed by 1457; presented to Henry VI. Hardyng, John, 1378-ca. 1465: soldier at Agincourt, diplomat; patronized by "Hotspur" and Robt. Umfraville. Contemporary account, based, in part, on author's experience for his own times or on information gained from acquaintances; also draws upon version of the Brut. Lancastrian Chronicon (1377-1421); completed by 1421. Usk, Adam of, ca. 1352-1430: Welsh ecclesiastical lawyer; patronized by

APPENDIX B

249

Edmund Mortimer, third earl of March; with Archbishop Arundel at Chester. Eyewitness account, in large part; events recorded at the time or from memory. Lancastrian Chronicon Angliae (1328-1388); probably composed between 1388 and 1392. Anonymous: written at St. Albans. Contemporary account; anti-Gaunt; anti-Wycliffe; some sympathy for young Richard. Generally Lancastrian Cronica Tripertita (1387-1401); composed ca. 1401. Gower, John, ca. 1330-ca. 1408: London poet. Contemporary account, original with Gower; events seemingly recorded as happened. Lancastrian Eulogium

Historiarum, a Continuation of (1364-1413); probably composed ca. 1429. Anonymous: probably written at Canterbury Abbey. Contemporary account, in part original; in part, perhaps based on a Latin chronicle of Canterbury. Lancastrian (At times denigrating to Richard's foes) Great Chronicle of London (1189-1512); composed 1509-1512. Anonymous: written by a London citizen, possibly F'abyan. Not contemporary for Richard II, but based on original records set down ca. 1414. Lancastrian

Historia Anglicana (1272-1422); for the most part, composed in first quarter of 15th cen., but section 1377-1392 probably composcdca. 1394. Walsingham, Thomas, fl. 1390's: "Scriptorarius" of St. Albans in early 1390's. Contemporary account; based on source probably original with Walsingham for 1377-1392; eventually derived from the source of Annates Ricardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti, for 1392-1406. l.ancastrian Historia

Mirabilis Parliamenti, MCCCLXXXVI (Oct., 1386-Junc, 1388); composed 1388. Favent, John, fl. ca. 1400: probably clerk of Salisbury Diocese. Probably eyewitness account or based on information gained from eyewitness. l.ancastrian

Historia

Vitae et Regni Ricardi II (1377-1402); composed probably soon after 1402. Monk of Evesham, fl. 1402.

250

APPENDIX B Contemporary account: generally follows St. Albans chronicles to 1390; original 1390-1402. Lancastrian

Knighton's

Chronicon, Continuation of (1377-1395); probably composed between 1377 and 1395. Anonymous: probably written at St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester, but by a different hand from Knighton's. Contemporary account, original with the continuator; pro-Gaunt, though Chronicon proper is anti-Lollard. Lancastrian

Liber de Illustribus Henricis (918-1466); completed ca. 1446; dedicated to Henry VI. Capgrave, John, 1393-1464: Augustinian friar at Lynn, Norfolk; patronized by Humphrey of Gloucester (fourth son of Henry IV). Not contemporary for Richard II; based on information gained from acquaintances; also draws largely upon St. Albans histories. Lancastrian The Poly chronicon, a Continuation of, from Harleian MS 2261 (1344-1402); composed between 1432 and 1450. Anonymous: a continuation of the other English translation of Higden's Polychronicon besides Trevisa's. Probably contemporary account; for 1377-1402, a fairly close translation of the Monk of Evesham's Vita. Lancastrian Vox Clamantis (1381); composed soon after 1381. Gower, John, ca. 1330-ta. 1408: London poet. Contemporary account, original with Gower; events seemingly recorded as happened. Lancastrian Ypodigma Neustriae (9th cen.-1419); composed 1419; dedicated to Henry V. Walsingham, Thomas, fl. 1390's: "Scriptoriarius" of St. Albans. Contemporary account; shares common sources with Historia Anglicana. Lancastrian

II.

THE PRE-YORKIST ENGLISH AND FRENCH SYMPATHIZERS WITH RICHARD English (written in England)

Anonimalle

Chronicle (1333-1381); composed latter part of 14th cen. in AngloFrench. Anonymous: written at St. Mary's Abbey, York. Contemporary account; for the Peasants' Revolt, based on a contemporary London source. Ricardian

APPENDIX B

251

Dieulacres Chronicle (1337-1403); composed first decade of 15th cen. Anonymous: written at Dieulacres Abbey, Staffordshire. Contemporary account, original with authors. Ricardian to 1400 Lancastrian, 1400-1403 Kirkstall Chronicle (1231-1400); composed late 14th and early 15th cen. Anonymous: written at Kirkstall Abbey, Yorkshire. Contemporary account, largely original with author. Ricardian to 1398 Lancastrian, 1396-1400 (2 yrs. repeated) The Polychronicon, a Continuation of (1381-1394); composed between 1381 and 1395. Monk of Westminster, fl. 1380's. Contemporary account; apparently in part an eyewitness account. Mildly Ricardian French (written in France) Chronicles of England, France, Spain, and the Adjoining Countries (1326-1400); composed during latter half of 14th cen. Froissart, Jean, ca. 1338-ca. 1410: secular clerk, treasurer of collegiate church of Chimay, France; visited England ca. 1361, 1367-1368, 1394-1395. Partly eyewitness account and partly based on information gained from eyewitnesses. Ricardian (Attempts impartiality) The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet (1400-1444), a continuation of Froissart; composed first half of 15th cen. Monstrelet, Enguerrand de, ca. 1393-1453: chief magistrate of Cambrai, France. Contemporary account, based on information gathered from eyewitnesses. Ricardian Chronicque

de la traison et mort de Richart Deux, roy Dengleterre (1397-1400); completed before 1412. Anonymous: probably written by a French clerk. Eyewitness account in large part; for events in Ireland and through the capture of Richard, borrows from Creton. Ricardian

Chronique

du religieux de Saint-Denys (1380-1422); probably completed by 1423. Anonymous: written at St. Denis Abbey in France, possibly by a historiographer in the presence of Charles VI of France.

252

APPENDIX B Contemporary account; for English history, largely based on Traison and Créton. Ricardian

Histoire du roy D'Angleterre Richart [ / / ] , traitant particulièrement la rebellion de ses subiectz . .. [J399]; probably composed ca. 1401 o r c a . 1405. Créton, John, fl. 1400: squire in suite of Richard II during last expedition to Ireland. Eyewitness account, or based on information gained from eyewitnesses. Ricardian

III.

THE YORKISTS

The Brut, a Continuation of, from Lambeth MS 84 (Havelok's time - 1475); composed 1478-1479. Anonymous. Not contemporary for Richard II; perhaps shares common source with Continuation of Eulogium and Davies' Chronicle-, also draws upon Traison and different versions of the Brut. Yorkist Chronicle (revised version),(earliest times to 1464); revised by end of 1464; presented to Edward IV. Hardyng, John, 1378