Brown, A. L., 'The Latin Letters in MS. All Souls 182', The English Historical Review 87 (1972), 565-573

-

Quick Summary

A letter from Richard II in November 1397 suggests that the recently exiled archbishop of Canterbury hoped the king would recall him

  • Two letters of importance from Richard II relating to the exile of Thomas Arundel in 1397
  • Richard expressed concern for Arundel’s welfare at the same time he was finalizing his replacement at Canterbury
  • Arundel initially thought he would be recalled to Canterbury by Richard II
Key Conclusion

Brown explores a series of fifty-four unpublished letters found in a manuscript held in the library of All Souls College, Oxford. Among these letters, Brown identifies two letters in particular that call for comment, both relating to the exile of Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury. The first is a letter from Richard II to the people of Ghent, dated 24 November 1397, thanking them for their hospitable treatment of Arundel. In the second letter (c. 1398), Richard wrote to Pope Boniface IX in a very different tone denigrating the archbishop. Brown concludes that Richard was being disingenuous in the first letter, and was actually in the final stages of securing the archbishop’s replacement.

Content Overview

Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, was one of Richard’s enemies during the rebellion of the Lords Appellant in 1387. In the Revenge Parliament of 1397, Richard had the archbishop accused of high treason and on 25 September the king announced that the Arundel had confessed his crimes. He was convicted and sentenced to exile within six weeks of 28 September. He probably left England only in late-October. Yet, in the first week of November his successor, Roger Walden, had already been ‘provided’ (appointed) by the pope to replace him. Given that a letter took at least four weeks to reach Rome from London, Richard II must have initiated the process of replacing Arundel by the end of September.

Further Findings

Following his exile, Arundel seems to have hoped that he would be recalled by Richard. This explains his presence in Ghent at the end of November 1397. As Brown notes, Ghent was not ‘the place in which a man hurrying to Rome would delay’ (p. 570). When it became clear that he was being replaced at Canterbury Arundel took his case to the papal curia. This elicited a letter from Richard II to the pope which cast Arundel as ‘arch-villain’. Richard claimed he was the ‘instigator’ of ‘injuries he suffered earlier in the reign’ (p. 569). The letter worked, and no more is heard of Arundel at Rome until he returned with Henry Bolingbroke in the invasion of 1399.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J...
Read more