Richard II and His Throne Usurping Cousin Henry IV

    The later Middle Ages have not been the era that interests me the most. I am more interested in the Age of Heroes, the time of the Great Migration, i.e. early Middle Ages, when King Arthur and Beowulf lived. I understand people's greater interest in the later period because there is more to know, more chronicles that survived, there was more written literature.
     I was interested in what Terry Jones wrote about Richard II and Henry of Bolingbroke and looked a little further afield for information about their conflict. Was Richard such a terrible unpopular king? Did Henry IV and his sidekick Arundel truly wipe any positive accounts of Richard from the record?  One issue with that is 'he who laughs last laughs loudest' and Henry IV did not have the last word on Richard. His son, Henry V, who had been fostered by Richard II and felt a great affection for him, little for his father and none for Arundel had the last word. Therefore, it could be that Henry V, who had quarreled with Arundel over power when his father became increasingly incapacitated by illness, who left a portrait of Arundel in the historical record that was more cruel and despotic than he was in actual fact and he could have easily corrected any and all accounts that were unkind to Richard II. As well, since he was friends with and second cousin to Thomas Chaucer (who scholars agree was Chaucer's son) if Chaucer had been murdered for being part of Richard's regime by Henry IV or killed as a heretic by Arundel, this would be an opportunity to rehabilitate him as well.
     In her book A Distant Mirror, a book on the 14th Century and the Hundred Years War, Barbara Tuchman wrote that Richard wanted to marry the daughter of the King of France in an effort to end the war which he had no use for and called 'intolerable'. She added that he did not share his countrymen's animosity towards the French. If he was not always a great king, she wrote that "Kingship, which can corrupt or improve, seems to have had a generally one-sided effect in the 14th century: only Charles V gained wisdom from responsibility." (pg. 533) She concluded by saying that historians debate if Richard was mentally ill but that this is a modern view of a "malfunction common to 14th century rulers: the inability to inhibit impulse."
      Terry Jones also wrote that Richard tacitly allowed Lollardy to flourish during his reign but Tuchman wrote that, following the Twelve Conclusions nailed by Lollards to the doors of St. Pauls and Westminster Abbey, Richard II came home from Ireland where he was campaigning 'to enforce new measures of suppression'. In a fury he threatened to kill Sir Richard Stury, who supported the Wycliffian proposal for reforms in the House of Commons, by the 'foulest death that may be'. So far be it from looking the other way, Richard defended traditional Catholicism although Tuchman adds that the Conclusions did make their way into his wife's entourage where they found some sort of welcome.
Although Jones was correct, Richard's efforts to end the Hundred Years War and make peace with France was very unwelcome by his barons and this formed a part of the movement to usurp him.
      One thing that was left out of Jones' book (and I wish it had not been) was the account in Holinshed's chronicle that Richard II had not starved to death (as most scholars now believe) but had been murdered according to Henry IV's wish by a Sir Piers Exton. This fact showed itself in Shakespeare's play Henry IV. Shakespeare showed Richard as an intellectual king, which perhaps influenced Jones' perception of Richard.  It is William Caxton who wrote that Richard II had starved to death at Pontrefact Castle because the Percys accused Henry IV of having starved him intentionally. Holished may have gotten his alternate history from chronicler, contemporary to Richard, called Jean Creton or the  anonymous writer of Chronicque de la Traison et Mort de Richart Deux, Roy Dengleterre. His body had been exhumed in 1871 by Dean Stanley of Westminster, and it was noted that there were no marks of violence on his body or head. The director of the National Portrait Gallery, Sir George Scharf, was present and made sketch's of the king's skull, which you can see here.

an account of the recent discovery of this sketch can be found here at the National Portrait Gallery site.

     What may have lead to the story of Richard's murder may have been that Henry, who was plagued with some disfiguring disease that may or may not have been leprosy, had been buried at Canterbury Cathedral near the tomb of Thomas Beckett, in hopes that the saint could intercede for him with God so that Henry could go to heaven, in spite of usurping the throne and having caused his cousin's death.
     Thomas Beckett, as you well know, had been murdered by knights who were acting on Henry II's exasperated cry of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest." Henry IV is said to have uttered similar words which cause Exton to depart with eight other men and chop Richard's head off while Richard defended himself manfully with a knife. Similar tales.
    I wonder why Jones did not include more of this in his book since he was discussing the death of Richard II and how the new regime pursued his supporters. This would have been better than all those flights of fancy. I suppose I should offer up some theory as to how Chaucer died. That will be my next post. 

Archbishop Arundel: As Black As He Was Painted?

      Margery Kempe lived from around 1373 until some time after 1436 when her autobiography ends. She was alive when Geoffrey Chaucer (1342-1400) was and so her story is great for its first hand account of life around the turn of the 15th century. She lived through the regime change but did not remark upon it, possibly the turmoil did not reach her in the north or did not affect her much beyond the risk of being burned as a heretic for being a Lollard. Being accused of heresy is no small thing but she survived in spite of the many times she had to defend herself.
       Margery is a middle class woman, the religious counterpart to the Wife of Bath. She tried her hand at several businesses which failed and then she tried to make her mark on the world as a holy woman. She did live rather close to the edge and frequently strayed over it so it is no wonder that she was accused before the Archbishop Arundel and dragged before the Archbishop of York and for being a Lollard. She was guilty but she answered questions well enough to escape being burned at the stake.
     In her autobiography, she described meeting Arundel. She was sent to him because she wanted to wear the white of purity and needed permission but the Bishop of Lincoln, to whom she applied, sent her to Arundel.  So she went to London, to Lambeth Palace, and many of the Archbishop's clerks were swearing and 'spoke many reckless words' for which she rebuked them. She was told she should have been burned at Smithfield with Sawtre. Margery was also there to ask for permission to receive communion every Sunday when most people received it once a year. She reported that "he granted it full benignly, all her desire without any silver or gold, nor would he let his clerks take anything for writing or for sealing the letter." When he showed himself so kind to her, she grew a little bolder and told him about her manner of living (she was going around, praying with people) and about her tears (after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, she began weeping loudly and copiously at every church service her 'gift' for which many a priest tried to banish her from his church.).  She wrote that Arundel "found no fault therein but approved of her manner of living and was right glad that our Merciful Lord Jesus Christ showed such grace in our days, blessed may he be."
      With all this kindness, she grew even bolder and mentioned to him how rude his staff was and rebuked him as well as told him that if he did not put those rude clerics out of his service that he would have to answer to the 'higher up'. She said that he heard her out 'full benignly and meekly' and gave her a fair answer then allowed her to go. This contrasts rather sharply with the picture of Arundel that Terry  Jones painted in his book on Chaucer.
     Jones also wrote that Arundel declared war on vernacular writing and yet in the introduction to the Book of Margery Kempe, Lynn Stanley wrote that Arundel sponsored Nicholas Love's translation of Meditations on the Life of Christ showing his awareness of the need for devotional texts particularly for female readers. I have never found a hostility to vernacular writing that Jones describes: where Church authorities clamp down on secular writing in the vernacular. Some do not approve of such frivolity however there was never a determined effort to stamp it out.
     So, was Arundel the imperious, harsh, war monger as he was portrayed in Jones' book? People are far too complicated for such a simple assessment and I do not think he ever felt threatened enough by Chaucer's writing to execute him for that.

Who Murdered Chaucer? A Review

     I really wanted to like this book. I have read Terry Jones' Barbarians and agreed with his premise that the Romans were the savages. I have also enjoyed Monty Python and the Holy Grail as well as Eric the Viking, although the excellence of the Holy Grail movie might be due to Terry Gilliam who also directed Time Bandits and The Fisher King, which I loved. However, this book falls very short of what it sets out to do: make a case for a possible death for Geoffrey Chaucer.
     Although Jones admits often that there is little information about Chaucer's life and no comment about his death, this does not prevent him from proceeding as though his 'could have's' and 'possibly's' are facts. When one wants to prove a murder, one needs to use the very best facts that are available and, in the absence of facts that prove ones case, it is acceptable to admit the original premise is in error.
     I was disappointed that Jones did not present a balanced view of the times in which Chaucer may have died: the aftermath of Henry IV's usurption of Richard II's throne and the upheaval that ensued as well as the increased tension between the Church Militant of the Archbishop Arundel and the followers of Wycliff who wanted a more personal relationship with God free from the heavy price in taxes paid to the church and without the translation of that relationship through deeply flawed and abusive clerics. The content of The Canterbury Tales and the images of the Ellesmere manuscript are not 'evidence' that Chaucer was a heretic and viewed by Arundel as such. Commonplaces like dying without a will or publishing a retraction of worldly literature are treated as powerfully damning evidence although they are not.
    The good relationship that Chaucer's son Thomas enjoyed with the new regime is treated dismissively although it is very suggestive that Chaucer might not have been murdered by Henry or Arundel for heresy or collaboration with Richard II's government. He should have been a pariah not Henry's butler. Other contemporary accounts of the time, like Adam of Usk are treated dismissively as well and some like the Book of Margery Kempe are not consulted at all. I would like to have seen some comment about how Shakespeare treated the death of Richard II in his play about Henry IV as well as some discussion about where Shakespeare got his information. In fact the whole thrust of the argument says more about Terry Jones than it does about the politics of Archbishop Arundel or Henry IV.
     He spent many pages in discussion about Dryden and not enough about Caxton, who published the Canterbury Tales in the first book published in England on a printing press. It was Caxton who paid for the first memorial in Westminster Abbey for the poet. It was on a later altar, paid for by a Nicholas Brigham, that we are given the date of October 25, 1400 as the date of Chaucer's death.
     People who do not know much about late medieval history might be taken in by the argument but those same people would find this book a little dull because their lack of knowledge would also indicate a lack of interest in the period or the poet. People who have an interest in the period might find the one-sidedness of the discussion irritating. I did.
     I realize Jones was having a bit of fun with history and I have often thought that people who write scholarly papers are rather humorless and should let their hair down a little.  However, there is a difference between having a bit of fun and letting your imagination run away with you. I wanted less conjecture and more facts. This would have been better as a historical novel.
     

Terry Jones on Chaucer's Death, part two

     I have almost finished the book and I want to make a few more points before I review it.

pg. 171 "It is possible to argue that Gower was not exactly a 'court poet'" No, he was not. He had independent means and owned his books. He commissioned his own copies and gave them as gifts. No need to argue. Jones uses this as a point to say that Gower changed allegiance to Henry IV because he was trying to keep his position. He does say that Gower's approval of Henry does not prove that he disapproved of Richard. There was turbulence during Richard II's reign but it did not go away with Henry's rule. He was plagued with rebellion and war too. The crown did not sit easily on his head, plus he had to live with the guilt of having disposed of the anointed king and being responsible for the death of his own kin and his later 'leprosy' was seen as a punishment of his sin in this world.

On page 230, he makes much that Richard's library has disappeared and that many books are lost from this time. Since things were copied by hand, there were few of them and fires destroyed many without censorship. Even some of Gower's books were lost for a time and he had 'official approval' according to Jones.

On page 256, Jones wrote about how Arundel's Constitutions stifled criticism of the Church and set a maximum lay people were permitted to know about scripture as well as setting out penalties. However the Constitutions in its entirety is available in English in The Book of Margery Kempe. Margery was dragged before Arundel several times and examined for orthodoxy. She lived during this time that is described and she had contact with Julian of Norwich. As well, her priest had been William Sawtre, who was burned at Smithfield in 1401 for being a relapsed heretic. You were generally not burned for being a heretic. It was being a relapsed heretic that would give you the death penalty. Margery often pushed the envelope in what she was permitted to do as a lay person and a woman but she survived. Jones did not even mention her in his book although she is a witness to the times and met Arundel. Nicholas Watson, in one of of the essays at the end of her autobiography, wrote "there is no mention of vernacular writing (as distinct from oral instruction)". The entire thrust of the article is to repress translations of the Bible and to guard the Church's monopoly on the purses of their parishioners. Arundel did not declare war on secular works with this article.

On page 264, Jones wrote about one of the first mentions of Chaucer in print which he states was a poem by Henry Scogan, supposedly read at the home of a Welshman and possibly attended by Chaucer's son Thomas, a subversive act. Too many maybes and might haves here. Plus there is the problem that Henry IV liked Chaucer's son Thomas and made him his butler and Thomas Chaucer was the Speaker of the Common's House, as well as being his cousin. Henry supported Thomas and Jones admits that this is often cited as a reason why Chaucer could not have fallen victim to the new regime. It is a very good point. When people are killed as heretics or bear the disapproval of the government, the stain usually tars their families who then also become pariahs and usually lose their rights to inherit property from the deceased. Thomas never made a move against Henry or Arundel and he even married into the royal family, his great grandson was John de la Pole, who was the designated heir to another star crossed Richard (III). The De La Poles fell afoul of Henry VIII in an ironic twist since they supported the papacy against Henry.

On page 303, he wrote about accounts of Chaucer's death especiallyJohn Bale and John Pits but, since so many histories are rife with inaccuracies, is the lack of agreement about the facts any argument? I think the fact that Thomas Chaucer co-operated with and prospered under the new government speaks louder.

Jones also made much of the fact that Chaucer took up residence at Westminster Abbey, citing its role as a legal sanctuary as part of the attraction of the place but then on page 309 he cites one Robert Tresilian, a former associate of Chaucer, who was dragged out of sanctuary to be tried and executed. I think Chaucer knew the futility of seeking sanctuary and did not take up residence there for that reason. More likely it was because he was old and would be cared for by the monks if he took ill. His wife seems to have passed away long before this.

Chapter 17 is about the Retraction and if Chaucer wrote it and really repented. It is a commonplace thing. Many writers wrote them, even Boccaccio who influenced Chaucer, wrote one that was sincere. It often happens to people when they are old or face a catastrophic illness that they become worried about the afterlife. On page 354, Jones admits that literary recantations "can be seen as following a tradition of medieval Latin, French and German writing in which and author, embarking on a religious topic, regret the follies of his youth and his writing of worldly vanity. As such the Retractions can be read as entirely conventional" But of course, Jones goes on to say that this Retraction was evidence of something else.

I have but a few pages left to go and then I will give a final review of the book.