The Deposition of Richard II: 'The Record and Process of the Renunciation and Deposition of Richard II' (1399) and Related Writings. Edited from London (Kew), National Archives, MS. C 65/62 and Other Manuscripts (review)

David R. Carlson has served scholarship well in editing "The Record and Process of the Renunciation and Deposition of Richard II" and a number of other Latin texts relating to the revolution of 1399. The "Record and Process" is well known to scholars, but its familiarity in modern English translation has probably led to some neglect of the original Latin. The additional items are likewise available in print, albeit in rare and sometimes inadequate editions. Still, it is extremely useful to have them available together in an up-to-date edition with professional apparatus. The edition also makes it possible to show some of the range of Latin writing in England in the years around 1400.

After a competent survey of the historical background, Carlson provides an introduction to the "Record and Process" that is the more valuable in its close attention to issues of language, genre, and style. Given that French was the usual record of proceedings in parliament, and indeed appears in the headings and subheadings, the use of Latin is itself a matter of note. As Carlson observes, the text's "ponderous, grave Latin style" (p. 8) was presumably deemed appropriate to the importance of the proceedings it purports to record. The text also includes Henry of Lancaster's challenge for the throne in English. As might be imagined, the Latin of the "Record and Process" is not especially elegant. Carlson finds its style to be verbose and convoluted, and its vocabulary idiosyncratic, seeking to Latinize French legal terms. He might have explored at greater length the vernacular substratum.

As regards genre and more general issues of composition, Carlson shows how the "Record and Process" was formally a record of the business transacted in the parliamentary assembly on 30 September 1399, including the reports of Richard's renunciation of the crown, Richard's deposition, Henry's challenge for the throne, and Henry's acclamation as king. Embedded within the text is a copy of Richard's coronation oath of 1377 and thirty-three articles detailing his malum regimen and tyrannous actions from 1386–87, when he sought to overthrow the council established by parliament to govern the realm. The articles are presented as a narrative, though not entirely in chronological order. Collectively, they are presented as an indictment of Richard, laying the grounds for his deposition.

As Carlson shows, the "Record and Process" is a "documentary amalgamation" (p. 7). The text itself represents Richard's "renunciation" and Henry's "vindication" as "actual documents, physically present" during the proceedings (p. 66). London, British Library, Stowe MS 66 includes versions of the two items that differ in significant detail from the versions in the "Record and Process." In the first of his appendices Carlson re-edits them along with two related poems, one of which Archbishop Arundel quoted in opening Henry IV's first parliament. As G. O. Sayles and C. Given-Wilson have argued, the Stowe versions of Richard's "renunciation" and Henry's "vindication" presumably antedated the "Record and Process" and had some independent circulation. Carlson offers some additional thoughts on the compilation of the "Record and Process." He notes, for example, the anomalous nature of article 33 and its clear dependence on information from Archbishop Arundel.

In other appendices Carlson includes two letters of Richard II in 1397–98, one to Albert of Bavaria, count of Hainault, and the other to Pope Boniface IX; Archbishop Arundel's letter to the monks of Canterbury in 1398 and Salutati's letter to Arundel in 1401; Bishop Repingdon's letter admonishing Henry IV in May 1401...