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
Post a Comment