This document is linked to ORB: The Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies. Use this link to reach the project's home page.

In defence of the Anglica Historia and Polydore Vergil

In their tireless searching for, and spreading of, the truth about Richard III, devoted Ricardians have been known to deal dismissively with those who do not support their views; chroniclers and historians in particular.

Living historians have usually been quite able to take care of themselves, and some lively debates have evolved. Not so fortunate often, are the historians long dead, who are no longer able to defend or explain themselves or their words. Of these, Polydore Vergil is perhaps the worst case. A worthy scholar and historian who has been written off, for his apparent stance on Richard. This is not merely unfortunate, but ironic, as it is the account given in the Anglica Historia of the battle of Bosworth, that is the most often sited as evidence of Richard’s bravery in battle.

A kind of mythology has grown up around Vergil and the Anglica, that they are not to be trusted, because Vergil was paid to write a history favouring the Tudors, by Henry VII. It has been stated many times in pro-Richard works, that the Anglica’s assessments are not to be trusted for this reason. It has also been stated that Vergil himself was aware that he was being misleading in the work, and indeed conspired with Henry VII, to destroy key documents and records of events to disguise the fact.

All of this is quite untrue, but makes an interesting case in how legends around people grow over time. The Anglica Historia inspired much controversy in the late C16^th and C17^th, which had nothing whatever to do with Richard III. Rather, the early scholars were highly incensed at a mere Italian daring to debunk the legends of King Arthur (the very legends, incidentally that Henry VII was so keen to promote) and of Brutus (the Trojan who was said to have been the first colonist of Britain). At times they became quite hysterical in their criticisms, berating Vergil’s foreignness, his popishness, his ingratitude to England and various other things that ring very false, to the modern reader. This began twenty years after the Anglica’s first appearance, at a time when nationalism was running high in England.

It wasn’t until 1574 (19 years after Vergil’s death) that John Caius thought of a new charge: Vergil destroyed all the books that proved Arthur and Brutus were true! This was enthusiastically taken up and embellished by portions of the literary community. The hapless historian was alternately accused of burning wagon-loads of books, or of shipping boatloads of MS to Rome.

By the time the Camden Society issued an edition of some of the late books of the Anglica in 1844, these stories had, according the editor, Henry Ellis, been effectively dissected, discounted and put to rest, by later historians. The next mention of them seems to be in an article on Richard III published in 1891. This repeated the book-burning theory in a Ricardian context, rather than an Arthurian one, with no more evidence than any of the earlier writers had, that is, none. From this, seemingly, grew the modern, Ricardian myth of Vergil as Henry VII’s ‘court’ historian paid to flatter the Tudors at the expense of Richard III.

What, therefore, if all this is mythology, is the truth about the Anglica Historia and its author? The following is a brief precis of both.

The Anglica was the first ‘history book’ in the narrative sense, about Britain. It was written in the humanistic mode and, as such was a fine, painstaking work of history, 22 years in the first edition’s making. Vergil amassed a great many sources (all extant) and took great pains to tease out the inconsistencies and contradictions in them. He expressly wanted to present as true and accurate a history of Britain and her peoples as possible. It could only be as good as its sources, however and Vergil complained of their lack in some periods, notably, the late C15^th . He also tried to use oral history where he could, but was careful to analyse what he was told and compare it with written sources. Where he found inconsistencies, he always said so.

The general attitude the book on Richard III shows toward its subject, is likely a product of a lack of written sources, coupled with probably biased oral sources (Morton and Christopher Urswick) and the general Italian humanist conventions of history writing. These had a way of making use of history, by colouring it with moralistic teaching: providing examples to be followed or avoided. Richard made a classic character not-to-be-emulated, which also accounts partly for his ‘popularity’ as a stage character.

What of the other area of Vergil mythology; the position he held ‘at court’? In short, though Vergil had official dealings with Court, he was never in Henry VII’s employ. He arrived in England as a cleric in the employ of Cardinal Adrian Castelli in 1501. He was already a moderately famous author. For his own amusement, and because Britain interested him, he began historical research. Five years later, the work came to Henry’s attention. It was noted and encouraged. Henry was a Renaissance king and is famous for encouraging cultured Italians. It took so long to finish the Anglica, that Henry VIII had been on the throne for well over a decade, by the time he was presented with a specially made Editio Princeps of the work. The flattery of him in the preface was standard, blatant and insincere: Vergil had written to please himself and his received ideas of what a history should be; not the English king. This is apparent from books 25 and 26, which are still used as a valuable (and critical) secondary source on the early Tudors.

Vergil was a churchman first and a humanist scholar second; he owed far more to the Cardinal for his preferments (including the Archdeaconry at Wells and prebend in St. Pauls), than to Henry VII. Remember too, that the history was first noted in 1506; near the end of Henry’s reign, when he was more secure on the throne than the Plantagenets had been for nearly a century before. Taken in this context, the idea that Henry felt a need to specifically justify himself with a long-winded, scholarly history book, is faintly ridiculous.

For all that, it is true, that to the modern reader, the Anglica Historia does not shed a great deal of light on the events of 1483 - 1485 (although it does make fascinating reading and contains some surprisingly acute details). It is also true that for the most part, what it has to say does not accord with the Ricardian view of Richard. The relevant book however, is only one of 26 books of the Anglica, and it is not reasonable to dismiss either the whole work or its author, based purely on this.

Ricardians (of whom the writer is one) can often afford to exercise a little more care and even-handedness in the way they treat those whose ideas seem to oppose their own. Early writers particularly, need to be examined with their period, style and purpose of writing firmly in mind. Not to do so is to run the risk of treating others, alive or dead, the way Richard himself has been treated by History.

Drawn from ‘A Life of Polidore Vergil of Urbino’ and ‘The Anglica Historia of Polidore Vergil’ by Johanna Stewart, in Tertian Fever (Qld Branch Occasional Papers) 1997 and 1998 respectively.

Sources were mainly Polidore Vergil by Denys Hay 1952; Richard III and His Early Historians by Alison Hanham 1975; plus the Camden Society reprints books of the Anglica 1844 & 1950.