Stow, George B., 'Stubbs, Steel, and Richard II as Insane: The Origin and Evolution of an English Historiographical Myth', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 143 (1999), 601-638


Quick Summary

The myth of Richard II insanity was popularized by Anthony Steel in 1941 but its origins but can be traced back to the late 1860s

  • According to one popular interpretation, Richard II’s insanity led to his deposition in 1399
  • The description of Richard’s character is traced to work of William Stubbs in 1868
  • Steel’s depiction of Richard’s insanity in 1941 became the standard depiction of the king
Key Conclusion

Stow explores the historiographical tradition that Richard II suffered from insanity in the last years of his reign. According to this tradition, defects in Richard’s character led to his deposition and downfall in 1399. Despite the enduring popularity of this interpretation, ‘depictions of Richard II as insane are unsupported by fourteenth century accounts of Richard’s character’ (p. 603). Portrayal of Richard II as insane first achieved ‘notoriety’ following the publication of Anthony Steel’s Richard II (1941), but the ‘historiographical myth’ can actually be traced to Bishop William Stubbs’s Constitutional History of England which Stubbs began to work on in 1868. The Stubbsean description of Richard’s character was subsequently adopted by Stubbs’s ‘impressionable contemporaries and successors’ (p. 637).

Content Overview

Stow observes that ‘Steel’s depiction of a neurotic Richard II proved irresistible to later students of Richard’s reign’ and was adopted as the ‘standard description of the king’s character’ (p. 602). However, the origin of the myth can be traced to Stubbs, who began to work on his Constitutional History at a time when theories of insanity were “in the air” in the later 1860s: ‘Stubbs, as a mid-Victorian, was surrounded on all sides by nearly incessant conversations concerning theories of insanity’ (p. 617). Consistent with Whig theories, Stubbs found Richard II worthy of deposition ‘as the enemy of the constitution’ and sought to account for Richard’s offensive actions through an analysis of his character (p. 608).

Further Findings

Stow argues that Victorian historians became ‘infatuated with nineteenth-century notions of psychology’ and how they could help us understand the motives of historical figures (p. 637). Writing in this context, Stubbs provided a description of Richard II’s mental state that became entrenched as a historiographical orthodoxy. However, Stow’s research casts ‘nearly equal doubt’ on the ‘historiographical practices’ of twentieth-century historians who have corroborated in the production of a ‘portrait of Richard’s character more bizarre, surreal, and far-fetched than anything that preceded it.’ Moreover, modern historians have done so ‘in spite of their professed interest in a more objective assessment of the past’ (pp. 637-8).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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