Nigel Saul's biography of Richard II opens with Shakespeare who, interestingly enough, doesn't make 1381 part of his play, dwelling instead on the "King and Man" who seemingly brought disaster upon himself. But after a quick opening chapter on Shakespeare, Saul quickly moves into a more orthodox history of the man. Richard II had a strong pedigree. His father was the military genius and violent feudal knight, Edward the Black Prince. His mother the indomitable Joan, Countess of Kent. His grandfather was Edward III which matters particularly because it meant that when the Black Prince died young, and his grandfather Edward followed a year later, Richard became King at just ten years of age.
Feudal courts were nothing if not a site of intrigue and alliance building. Richard's youth meant he was a pawn in wider power games, and this shaped his later life. Saul argues that while Richard managed to break free of the forces using him, he increasingly found himself creating a centralised state around himself. But this is to get slightly ahead of ourselves.
When the Peasants' Revolt broke out in 1381 Richard was fourteen, and on the cusp of adulthood by Medieval standards. His leading role in the defeat of that uprising has been much discussed. Richard is occasionally, not least in the recent Paul Greengrass film The Uprising, painted as sympathetic toward the rebels. Indeed one of my reasons for reading this book was to see if there was any material that would shed light on this. Saul says firmly the opposite. He writes, "Certinaly it is unlikely that Richard felt any mustical sympathy for the rebels: all his adult life he was to lay emphasis on the subject's obligation of obedience". But Saul continues to point out that after the rebellion Richard clearly felt obliged to play a role in the manumission of the rebels. Nevertheless Richad's own words, "with his own mouth", in Saul's words "show himself unsympathetic", encouraging repression of rebels following the uprising.
Much later in his life, Saul argues that Richard remained (or was increasingly) unsympathetic to those beneath him in the feudal hierarchy. Saul writes:
There is no reason to suppose that Richard was greatly concerned by his subjects; attitude, favourable or otherwise, towards him. Such evidence as there is suggests that he was disdainful of the opinions of others. He made little attempt to seek his subjects' goodwhile and affection, and he showed himse indifferent to their aspirations. As he became more powerful in the 1390s, so he became more aloof, and possible also more arrogant.
Saul draws on one contemporary chronicle that depicts Richard's growing arrogance.
As the Eulogium writes narrates, it became [Richard's] practice to sit enthroned fomr dinner till vespers, observed by his courtiers, who were expected to bend the knee whenever his gaze fell on them. At the same time the chroniclers tell how he was increasingly given to spekding his time in the company of sycophants and cronies.
Of course such behaviours are hardly unique among monarchs. In our own times we have heard accounts of the behaviour of recent Princes and Kings who have demanded similar obsequience. In addition after Richard's fall there was a need to portray him in a negative light and these allegations certainly helped legitmise his replacement.
Nonetheless it is clear that Richard's behaviour at court, his increasingly dismissal of anyone but a few loyal sycophants and his stripping of enemies of wealth and titles undermined his own rule dramatically. His end was pathetic and depressing, and probably unlike Shakespeare's portrayal.
Saul concludes that Ricahrd was, however, engaged in a process of developing the feudal state into a more national and centralised structure. He sees an "overall similarity between his kingly style and that of his fellow rulers in Europe. In many European states at this time prices were seeking to 'distance' themselves from their subjects. The stimulus to their action was provided by the growing prosperity of the lower orders... rulers needed to reassert their pre-eminence by exalting or 'distincing' themselves."
Further, and not unconvincingly, Saul suggests that this instinct meshed with Richard's own temperament, finding evidence as far back as Richard's lonely childhood.
As with any biography it is often difficult to separate the work from the subject. Nonetheless a few words ought to be said about the book itself. Despite this being the classic biography from the renowned Yale English Monarch series I was disappointed. Saul offers very little context on the lives and livelihoods of those subjects that Richard ruled. Even though Richad oversaw the repression of the greatest pre-modern rebellion in European history, there's precious little here about why the rebellion occured. Saul prefers to dwell (and he is an expert on) the material about Richard's life and person. It makes for a frustrating and dry read. I also felt that the book felt more older than its 1997 publication date would suggest. In discussing the lack of children between Richard and his beloved first Queen Anne, Saul writes that "the most likely explanation for the couple's childlessness is that either she was barren or he was infertile". The language here feels unfortunately dated.
While this is a useful historical overview of Richard II's life, it felt more like a textbook. I will keep it for reference, but I doubt it will excite a re-read.
Related Reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment