Death of Archbishop Scrope, The

DESCRIPTION: "The bishop Scrope that was so wise, Now he is dead and low he lies. To heaven's bliss yet may he rise. Through help of Mary that maid mild." He was mild and still for his execution. He forgave his killer, asking to be slain with five strokes
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1600 (Cambridge, Trinity College MS. R.4.20)
KEYWORDS: death execution clergy MiddleEnglish
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Jun 8, 1405 - Execution of Archbishop Richard Scrope
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Greene-TheEarlyEnglishCarols, #425, pp. 288-289, "(The Bysshop Scrope, that was so wyse)" (1 text)
Brown/Robbins-IndexOfMiddleEnglishVerse, #3308
DigitalIndexOfMiddleEnglishVerse #5212
ADDITIONAL: Frederick J. Furnival, _Hymns to the Virgin and Christ, The Parliament of Devils, and other Religious Poems, chiefly from The Archbishop of Canterbury's Lambeth MS. #853_, Early English Text Society, Tuebner & Co., 1867, p. 128, "The Death of Archbishop Scrope" (1 text)
Rossell Hope Robbins, _Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Century_, Columbia University Press, 1959, #31, p. 90, "The Death of Archbishop Scrope" (1 text)
P. J. P. Goldberg, editor, _Richard Scrope: Archbishop, Rebel, Martyr_, Shaun Tyas, 2007, pp. 114-115, "The Bishop Scrope that Was so Wise" (1 text, edited by Stephen K. Wright)
MANUSCRIPT: Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. R.4.20 (Trinity 652), folio 71
RELATED: "Hereford and Norfolk" --
Hales/Furnival-BishopPercysFolioManuscript, volume II, pp. 238-245, "Herefford & Norfolke" (1 text)
MANUSCRIPT: {MSPercyFolio}, The Percy Folio, London, British Library, MS. Additional 27879, page 265
ST MsDArScr (Partial)
NOTES [6075 words]: This has never been found in tradition, and the only manuscript containing it is of no particular importance although it was most carefully made. On that basis, it probably seems a poor candidate for indexing. Yet it is thought by most editors to be a carol (it certainly has a refrain), and it tells an historical story in an interesting form. Stephen K. Wright, on p. 122 of Goldberg, calls it "reminiscent of the popular English ballad" based on form and style as well as the lack of rhetorical ornament. It really seems to represent Yorkshire folk opinion. I'm indexing it on that basis.
The manuscript's primary contents are an interesting mix -- there are two major works, "The Travels of Sir John Mandeville" (folios 1-87r) and John Lydgate's "The Siege of Thebes" (folios 89r-169r) (Stephen K. Wright, on p. 120 of Goldberg). Mandeville's "Travels" is a wonder tale; parts of it describe real places but much is fictional; it is clearly a secular work. " Lydgate's work is on a secular subject, but Lydgate himself was a monk (for background on him, see the notes to "The London Lackpenny"). The manuscript is of good quality and probably was for a well-off patron; Wright believes it was made in the early 1400s; it was donated to Trinity College in 1663.
The two major works each start at the beginning of a quire, and "Mandeville's Travels" did not fill its last quire completely, leaving some room for additional writings. This left space for additional writings; this was one of several items on folio 88; one of the others is what Wright calls a "heart-breaking love letter" that was copied twice on the same page by other hands (Wright, on p. 121 of Goldberg).
Richard Scrope (c. 1346-1405), of the baronial family of the Scropes of Masham, became Bishop of Lichfield in 1386, then Archbishop of York in 1398 (Hicks, p. 205), just a year before the overthrow of King Richard II.
According to Hicks, p. 205, until his execution, "he was an 'obscure and colourless figure' with no distinguishable political affiliations and was indeed 'the very antithesis of the ambitious, worldly prelate.'" SImilarly Goldberg, p. 1, says his execution "served to transform a conscientious, devout, but apparently loyal ecclesiastic not previously noted either for his charisma or his interest in politics into a martyr and a saint. Richard Scope was transformed from an aristocratic younger son who had achieved high office as a reward from years spent in papal and royal service into York's own Becket, the focus of a regional cult and the object of pilgrimage."
He was a younger son of Henry, first Lord Scrope of Masham, and so was destined for the church rather than inheriting his father's barony (there is a genealogy on p. x of Goldberg). He apparently went to Oxford for a time, though the records of this are scant, then studied law at Cambrige from 1375-137. .He even became Chancellor of Cambridge 1378-1380. (R. K. Swanson, on p. 19 of Goldberg). He was ordained in 1377 -- and, unlike most members of noble families who joined the church, he seems, based on our limited records, to have taken his clerical duties entirely seriously (Hicks, p. 206).
Apparently it was also thought that he was not only celibate but a virgin, since this was part of his cult (P. H. Cullum, on pp. 94-97 of Goldberg). Although not rare at the time, it was far from universal among clerics who came from noble families.
After university he went to Rome and served in the papal court. In 1385, the canons of Chichester elected him Bishop -- only to have King Richard II turn him down. But he was allowed to become Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield in 1386 in a complicated arrangement that translated the incumbent bishop (Swanson, on p. 20 of Goldberg).
The exact details of the decision to make him Archbishop of York in 1398 are not clear. He was in Rome on a diplomatic mission when the old Archbishop died unexpectedly. Did the Pope appoint Scrope against Richard's will, or did Richard support it? We can't know; it doesn't sound as if Scrope expected it, since he had already set up a chantry for himself at Lichfield (Swanon, on pp. 22-23 of Goldberg).
Richard II had come to the throne in 1377 at the age of ten and had had constant troubles with others trying to run the country for him (Smith, p. 203, who points out e.g. that the Merciless Parliament of 1388 had not only taken over his government but also executed many of his friends and favorites). Despite this, by 1397 he had gained complete control of the government, executing several of his chief opponents -- including the Earl of Arundel and Richard's uncle Humphrey of Gloucester, who allegedly died prison while awaiting trial (yeah, sure; Saul, pp. 378-379). Others were plundered or exiled -- including Henry of Bolingbroke, heir to the Duchy of Lancaster and one of Richard's potential heirs (Saul, p. 373; the king was childless and his second wife still only a child, so Bolingbroke, a first cousin, was an obvious candidate to succeed). Also exiled was Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brother of the executed Earl of Arundel (Bevan, p. 140).
The exile of Bolingbroke is the subject of "Hereford and Norfolk," discussed below.
After this, "[Richard's] vengeance was complete. The last of his enemies was punished. A parliament packed with Richard's supporters voted him a life income and set up a committee of eighteen submissive creatures of the king to exercise several Parliamentary powers. New treason laws expanded the definition of treason and wrapped it up in such ambiguous language that any opposition to the king might be called treason. Law after law was broken by the royal commands.... No man's life or property was safe. Richard was king indeed" (Smith, p. 203). Kirby, pp. 51-51, makes the situation even worse: Richard rewrote the rules for this committee of 18 after parliament dissolved, to make it a better instrument, and required "blank charters" of his nobles, apparently meaning that Richard could commit them to *anything* without actually asking their consent.
Richard even managed to worsen relations with France (Saul, p. 407), despite the fact that his child bride was the daughter of King Charles VI and he had tried to keep peace with France. Perhaps the French were willing to look the other way at plotting against him.
In 1399, Richard's uncle John of Gaunt, the father of Bolingbroke, died (Bevan, p. 138). Richard made Bolingbroke's exile permanent and moved to possess Gaunt's and Bolingbroke's lands. Richard was now acting like a pure tyrant. Richard decided that it was time to take an army to Ireland to control the constant raids and rebellions of the Irish (Kirby, p. 52) -- and, in another sign of tyranny, he levied forced loans to pay for it (Bevan, p. 136). Then he was off to Ireland, without leaving anyone really in charge (technically, Richard's last living uncle, Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, was supposed to govern, but he was too ineffective to run things if anything went wrong; Bevan, p. 142; Kirby, p. 53). So off Richard sailed to Waterford -- where the Irish led by Art MacMurrough avoided battle and caused Richard to chase them all over the place without accomplishing anything (Bevan, p, 145).
Meanwhile, there was trouble in England. Bolingbroke led a party of exiles, including Archbishop Arundel, to invade England. At first, he claimed he was just out to regain his dukedom; he also spread a series of lies about Richard (Bevan, pp. 145-146).
And he gained allies -- notably the Percies of Northumberland, Henry the First Earl of Northumberland and his son Harry "Hostspur," who had gotten in trouble with Richard for opposing the punishment of Bolingbroke (Bevan, p. 143). But they remained at liberty, and they joined Henry and other northern rebels at Pontefract (Bevan, pp. 145-146). It's not clear that all these supporters wanted Henry to overthrow Richard; they may only have supported Henry's claim on his land (Saul, p. 409). But they were enough to make the revolt a serious threat. Some time later, Henry met with the Duke of York, and somehow caused York to stop actively opposing Henry (Saul, p. 410; Kirby, p. 57, says he actually joined his army to Henry's).
Richard, in Ireland, seems not to have taken the rising seriously; it took many days before he decided to return to England, and was slow to take the field after he did return (Bevan, pp. 147-148). It wasted time that he didn't have; the troops that the Earl of Salisbury had raised for him abandoned the cause when Richard didn't show up (Bevan, p. 148). Many other supporters also gave up when Richard didn't appear (Saul, p. 411).
Details on what happened next are extremely sketchy, but Richard left his army and ended up at Conway Castle with relatively few supporters. Henry sent Northumberland with his forces to try to negotiate (Saul, pp. 412-413; Kirby, pp. 57-58; Archbishop Arundel may also have taken part). Northumberland supposedly promised to let Richard keep his throne in return for granting Bolingbroke his Lancaster dukedom and other rights (Bevan, p. 151). Possibly Northumberland even believed that Richard would keep his throne -- under suitable supervision, of course. But as Kirby comments, pp. 58-59, "The Earl may not have been aware that he was being used to deceive Richard... but his whole career suggests that he would not be over-scrupulous about betraying either his friends or his enemies."
Richard insisted that Northumberland swear to this. Northumberland swore -- and promptly turned Richard over to Bolingbroke (Bevan, p. 152). "In a little more than a month Henry had transformed himself from an exile into the master of both king and kingdom, a position from which he could not withdraw, but a position which posed several well-nigh insoluble problems" (Kirby, p. 59). Kirby, p. 61, thinks that Henry, Northumberland, and Archbishop Arundel ran the country for a time as "advisors" to Richard II.
Exactly what Henry's plans were at this point we cannot know -- but Henry clearly decided that the situation was intolerable. Eventually he and his allies set out to depose the king (Saul, p. 418). That was in 1399; in early 1400, Richard conveniently died (Saul, p. 425).
Richard probably had to be overthrown -- he was ruling utterly arbitrarily. (As Smith says on p. 204, Richard's great-grandfather "Edward II had been deposed [in 1326/1327] because he governed too little, Richard II because he tried to govern too much.") But he still had supporters. And the man who overthrew him, Henry of Lancaster, while he was Richard's heir in male line, was not the heir in female line; members of the Mortimer family were closer to the throne.
Henry, because he had usurped the throne, was in a particularly difficult position. He didn't want to rule too despotically, lest the mass of lords remember that he had a weak claim to the throne (even though Richard II was dead, there were those pesky Mortimers). But he had followers who wanted to be paid off. Starting with the Percies. After all, he might not have been king without them!
And he faced constant wars as well, especially with Owen Glyn Dŵr (Glendower), but relations with Scotland and France posed problems too. And supposedly his revenues were down about 20% from what Richard had enjoyed (Keen, p. 314). As a result, he was chronically short of money, and parliament was always pestering him about his accounts and what he had done with Richard II's accumulated treasure (Given-Wilson, p. 176). In a reign of less than fourteen years, he ran through ten treasurers (Kirby, p. 115), indicating just how hard the job was! Henry spent much of his reign seeking new ways to raise money (an early one was to try to raise money from his bishops. The northern bishoprics were poorer than the southern, but Archbishop Scrope's offering of 100 marks=£66 13s 4d -- Kirby, pp. 95-96 -- was particularly stingy; one wonders if Henry remembered...). The crown jewels often had to be used as security on loans (Kirby, p. 144).
The Percies came out of this very well; "No family apart from the king's had profited more from the deposition of Richard II. Before 1399 was out, Northumberland had been made constable of England for life and warden of the West March [with Scotland] for ten years, granted the Isle of Man, and put at the head of a consortium which farmed the Mortimer inheritance during the young earl's minority. His son Hotspur became warden of the East March, also for ten years, sheriff of Northumberland, justiciar of Chester and North Wales, and sheriff of Flintshire; he was granted the lordship of Anglesey and custody of the Mortimer lordship of Denbigh. Father and son thus secured a virtual monopoly of civil and military power on the Scottish marches and in North Wales. Meanwhile, Thomas Percy, the earl's brother... [retained the title Earl of Worcester which Richard had given him in 1397 and] became admiral of England..." (Given-Wilson, p. 190. On pp. 190-191, he suggests that Hotspur served mostly as a soldier, Worcester was mostly at court, and Northumberland involved in commissions of many types, often but not always in London).
In 1402, Hotspur won the Battle of Homildon Hill or Humbleton Hill against the Scots, breaking their invading army and capturing, among others, the earl of Douglas and three other earls, plus Murdoch Stewart of the Scots royal family (Givens-Wilson, p. 200). The Scots border was not entirely quiet, but it was basically safe, and it was not Henry but the Percies who had accomplished the feat. The problem with all this was that they had much of the military might of England under their control. If they proved unreliable, Henry was in a lot of trouble.
And they proved unreliable.
It was Wales that proved Henry's biggest problem. Hotspur was having to fight the war with the Welsh out of his own resources, because Henry was so broke. Hotspur didn't like that. Which probably reminded him that his wife was the sister of Edmund Mortimer, whose nephew (also named Edmund) was Richard II's heir in female line -- in other words, he had a claim to the throne arguably better than Henry's. And Glyn Dŵr had captured Mortimer the uncle, and Henry (who really did have a blind spot for Wales) refused to let Mortimer ransom himself. Mortimer therefore decided to join the Welsh cause (Given-Wilson, p. 190-194) -- and eventually the Percies came around, too.
"The reasons for their discontent remain as much of a mystery to us as they probably were to the King. No doubt there was some disagreement with the royal policy in Wales, the Percies both felt that they had received but a very small proportion of the money that was their due, and Hotspur regarded the prisoners of Homildon as his own property to be ransomed as and when he chose without royal interference [which is how things usually worked, but Henry had demanded the prisoners himself], but above all it seems to have been personal ambition which led the younger Percy to rebel" (Kirby, pp. 153-154).
Supposedly the Percies, Mortimer, and Glyn Dŵrmade an agreement to split the country: Glyn Dŵr would get an enlarged Wales, Northumberland the whole north of England, Mortimer would rule the west, as king or regent (Keen, p. 312). Hard to believe there were many others who would have signed on to *that.*
Still, the revolt would likely have succeeded if the rebels had coordinated better. But Northumberland's army had to come from the Scottish border. Glyn Dŵr was in western Wales. And Hotspur was in the northern Welsh marches. Henry moved fast and attacked Hotspur before the others could do anything -- it's not even absolutely sure that they were coordinating their movements. Hotspur was slain at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 (Given-Wilson, pp. 219-226). Despite the setback, Glyn Dŵr continued his rebellion (he didn't have much choice, since Henry had already refused to pardon him), but Northumberland pretended that he hadn't been involved and asked to be received back into the King's Peace. Henry, with no money to fight another battle, and prodded by parliament to not be too harsh, accepted Northumberland's submission (no doubt with a lot of mental reservations) -- for the moment. But he stripped him of many of his offices and awards (Given-Wilson, p. 231), which can't have made Northumberland any happier.
None of which has anything to do with Archbishop Scrope, except that he was a northern Archbishop from a northern family in the region the Percies dominated. Apolitical he might have been, but all this affected him, and the fact that Henry had won at Shrewsbury didn't make the crown any less grasping! Kirby, p. 186, thinks Scope not only took part in the next rebellion but that he instigated it.
"[I]n the city of York more serious trouble was brewing. Here the protesters were led by Richard Scrope, archbishop of York, and Thomas Mowbray, the earl marshal. Scrope was a man more associated with the previous than the current regime. Sent to Rome by RIchard II in 1397 to seek the canonization of Edward II, he was rewarded with his archiepiscopal see on his return, and although he acquiesced in Henry's usurpation there is no evidence of a personal rapport between him and the new king. Between 1399 and 1405 he kept his distance from the court, encouraging the northern convocation to prevaricate and negotiate over the king's demands for clerical taxation. It was a sermon he gave in York Minster which galvanized the citizens into action, probably on Sunday 17 May [1405]. He and Mowbray also drew up a list of grievances which they posted on the gates of the city..." (Given-Wilson, pp. 267-268).
Nuttgens, pp. 112-112, calls it the "most politically suicidal act in the entire history of York."
Raine, pp. 292-304, gives the Latin text of what is claimed to be Scrope's statement against Henry, with repeated statements that Henry should be excommunicated. It calls him "Henricum Derby," "Henry of Derby," rather than Henry IV, and charges him with treason (p. 294), with a brief summary of his quarrel with Norfolk, his invasion, his breaking of his promise to remit taxes (pp. 295-296), his seizure of property and murder of opponents, including having the old king, Richard II, imprisoned, deposed (pp. 296-297) and starved to death (p. 298), ignored the rights of the religious (p. 299), killed various lords such as Thomas Percy and Hotspur, whose body was quartered (p. 300). He also worked against the rights of Rome (p. 301). All this hurt the country. The document says it wants "no change in spiritual or lay persons" (p. 303 margin), but they want to put the right king on the throne, and make peace with the Welsh and Irish. They ask for help, and grant indulgence to those who participate (p. 304).
"Scrope seems to have taken it upon himself to act as a mediator between his public -- nobility, clergy and burgesses alike -- and the Crown. His reformist program, written in English and hung on church-doors and on the city-gates of York, voiced certain complaints and abuses, to which remedies were suggested. It called for a London parliament with free elections, in which the following reforms would be discussed: (1) Removal of the burden of taxation from the clergy (following the Commons' call for heavier taxation in the Unlearned Parliament of 1404); (2) A remedy for the subjection and annihilation suffered by lords when rightful claims to lands and titles were wrongfully denied to them (as the Earl Marshal, Thomas Mowbray, had reportedly complained to Scope); (3) Emendation of the excessive taxes imposed on all estates (especially in York, which found itself burdened by the fiscal demands of Henry IV); and (4) Punishment for those who had put the wealth of the Commons to their own use. The idiom of protest used by Scrope, highlighting the three orders of society -- fighters, prayers, and workers -- place this reformist agenda alongside other similar 'risings of the commons', such as that of 1381; the general dissent it expresses remains within a context of obedience, both to the ruler and to the social hierarchy" (Piroyansky, p. 49).
On this platform Scrope, Mowbray, and others raised a large crowd -- I'm not sure the word "army" is warranted. But Henry's response was clearly military.
Henry IV would later claim Scrope and Mowbray were taken in battle. "The truth, however, was not so straightforward. Negotiations were opened, during which [the Earl of] Westmorland assured the archbishop and earl marshal that he would do his best to persuade the king to remedy their grievances. Apparently satisfied with this, Scrope and Mowbray encouraged their supporters to disband, but were then arrested and taken to Pontefract castle" (Given-Wilson, p. 268). (Shakespeare blames this largely on John, the future Duke of Bedford, Henry IV's third son, but that's just Shakespeare being Shakespeare -- i.e. ignoring historical facts.)
Henry's decision to execute Scrope was surprising given that, when Henry had faced a major rebellion at the start of his reign, all the clerics involved had been allowed to live -- even Thomas Merks, the Bishop of Carlisle (who had spoken on Richard's behalf in the parliament where Richard was deposed; Kirby, p. 69), who had initially been given a death sentence (Given-Wilson, p. 163), though he was not restored to his see. Henry's general policy was to be lenient with clerics (Kirby, p. 89). And Henry's ally, Archbishop Arundel, desperately tried to get Henry to change his mind, and Chief Justice Gascoigne is said to have withdrawn from the trial (Hicks, pp. 206-207). But Henry was determined on punishment. Scrope, Mowbray, and one Sir William Plumpton were ordered executed.
"[A] hastily created court which included the Earl of Arundel [the archbishop's nephew], Sir Thomas Beaufort [the Beauforts were Henry's half-siblings] and a judge, Sir William Fulthorpe, condemned Scrope, the Earl Marshal [Mowbray], and Sir William Plumpton as traitors. They were immediately beheaded outside the city of York. Henry had his revenge, an also made one of the big mistakes of his life" (Kirby, p. 187).
Scrope is reported to have told Mowbray that they would meet in paradise. His last words, by one report, were "It is for the laws and good government of England that I die" (GIven-WIlson, p. 269).
Henry seems to have tried to humiliate Scrope on his way to his execution, causing him to ride a cheap nag without a saddle. He also caused Scrope to be dressed in a plain blue cloak rather than his episcopal robes This turned up in both the accounts of Scrope's martyrdom, by Clement Maidstone (who wrote c. 1414 and died 1456) and Thomas Gascoigne (died 1458; the similarities in the two accounts have led some to think they have an earlier common source; Piroyansky, p. 51), and Scrope showed his dignity by saying he had never liked a horse better than this one (Danna Piroyansky, on pp. 101-105 of Goldberg). He certainly gave the martyrologists good copy to work on.
It was the first time a king had directly executed any bishop -- and an archbishop at that! (Given-Wilson, p. 270). Little wonder that miracles were soon reported at Scrope's grave (Kirby, p. 187) -- Maidstone's account lists three supernatural events, although it's not clear if any would pass Catholic scrutiny: "a miraculous harvest in the field where the archbishop died... King Henry's sudden attack of leprosy... the Archbishop's posthumous appearance to John Sibson, an elderly would-be murderer who, in a guilt-stricken frenzy, then cleared huge tree trunks or beams from the martyr's tomb in York Minster" (Stepehn K Wright, on p. 117 of Goldberg; the original text is on pp. 308-309 of Raine). Also, in 1413, a bell-tower near York caught fire, and an invocation of Scrope was said to have miraculously put it out (Piroyansky, p. 61). He was also considered to have power over stormy waters (Piroyansky, p. 70), although no specific miracle seems to be involved there. "Scrope proved more effective dead than alive -- by creating the most spectacular devotional cult in the late medieval Minster" (Nuttgens, p. 113). Soon he was regarded in Yorkshire as a saint. (A crux in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] has the Abbot of Saint Mary's swear "By Saint Richard," which has troubled scholars who can't find such a saint. Surely Scrope is meant.)
Pilgrimages to his grave site apparently began almost immediately, and would induce the authorities to try to make it impossible -- Sibson's alleged miracle of moving large beams served to make the burial site once again open to visitors. Apparently there were other attempts to keep people away, and all failed (Christopher Norton, on p. 172 of Goldberg).
A later poem would speak of "Holy bisshope Scrope, the blyssed confessour" (Rollins #93, pp. 222-226, line 14, from the Society of Antiquaries MS. 101. Index of Middle English Verse #3756; DIMEV #5979. Rollins calls the piece "A Political Retrospective" and dates it to 1462; it is a Yorkist piece, so it would be inclined to cast Scrope in the best light and "henry of derby" in the worst. A "confessor" was a technical term which does not really apply to Scrope, however; it was applied to those who gave strong testimony to the faith but were not martyred -- hence "Edward the Confessor").
There is a Latin account, "Execution of Archbishop Scrope," which ends with the "Explicit processus martirii Ricardi Scroup Eboracensis archepiscopi" ("The end of the 'process' of the martyr Richard Scrope Archbishop of York"). Being called a martyr doesn't make you a saint, but it helps.... There are at least two copies, in Bodley MS. 851 and in British Library MS. Cotton Faustina B.ix (Brewer/Rigg, pp. 33-34).
There were definitely relics associated with Scrope (Goldberg, pp. 11-12). Among the most notable is the "Bolton Hours," from before 1445; it has a prayer to Scrope, once refers to him as "Sancte ricarde scrope" and once as "S. ricardus"; the second notation is in a picture which shows him as a saint (Danna Piroyansky, p. p. 110 of Goldberg; pictures of the images are in the photos section of Goldberg). In the 1460s, King Edward IV formally petitioned for his canonization (Goldberg, p. 12), and pushed the diocese of York to work for that end in 1462 (Christopher Norton, on pp. 198-199 of Goldberg) -- which is pretty ironic when you consider that Edward IV's grandfather Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, had been the one to take Scrope and Mowbray into custody! But we know that he had been called a saint before that, and that there had been earlier support for canonization (Norton, on p. 199 of Goldberg). R. N. Swanson, p. 17 of Goldberg, says "His cult was certainly strong throughout the fifteenth century, and into the sixteenth." And his story was popular enough that four copies of Maidstone's account were preserved (Piroyansky, p. 51).
There were probably a number of reasons why there was no formal inquiry into Scrope's sanctity. One was that the church in York didn't want to pay the expense. The other is that, at the time Edward IV wanted to make it happen, the Archbishop of York was a political opponent of the Yorkist regime, which probably gummed things up. (The Yorkists apparently tried to portray some of Scrope's statements as being pro-Yorkist when in fact they were probably pro-Richard II; Piroyansky, p. 53.) Plus there was a peculiar confusion of dates: June 5, the date of Scrope's execution (and hence the date likely to become his feast day) was also the death-date and feast day of William FItzHerbert, an earlier Archbishop of York (died 1154) who had been canonized in 1226 (Norton, on pp. 203-204 of Goldberg). Thus York was over-supplied with saintly archbishops who died on June 8! Considering the track record of martyr bishops in this period, I suspect Scrope would have had a pretty good shot had it not been for the opposition of the 1462 Archbishop.
Though Scrope didn't make it to Saint, it was easy to see the finger of God in what followed: Henry would live eight more years, but he was ill for much of that time, and some reported the disease as leprosy. There was a belief that it began after he executed Scrope (Given-Wilson, p. 270. Certainly it did start in the years after that, but there is no proof that it happened soon enough after to imply cause and effect! On the other hand, OxfordCompanion, p. 466, suspects he had a stroke in 1406, which isn't long after Scrope's death and came at the surprisingly young age of 39 or 40, so just maybe there is a connection.... Kirby, p. 213, suggests that a long progress that Henry took after a difficult parliament in 1406 was a pilgrimage to atone for the murder, but it so, he didn't go to the more obvious pilgrimage spots such as Canterbury or Walsingham).
As reported in the last verse of the poem, Scrope apparently asked to be beheaded with five blows to commemorate the five wounds of Christ; a chronicle reported, "Than said tharchbishop to him that sholde smyte of his hed, 'For His loue that suffrid v woundes for alle mankynde, yeue me v strokes, and I foryeve the me dethe'" (Robbins, p. xxi) i.e. "Then said the archbishop to him that would smite off his head, 'For his love that suffered five wounds for all mankind, give me five strokes, and I forgive you my death.'" Maidstone's Latin account says the same (Raine, p 308). Robbins, p. 295, says that the executions was one Thomas Alman of Poppleton, a prisoner in York; one suspects that no local of any standing was willing to kill Scrope. The name Thomas Alman is also found in Maidstone (Raine, p. 307: "Thomæ Alman").
The fourth verse, in which Scrope says he will commend his executioner's soul, also parallels the chronicles; Maidstone says that Scrope forgave his executioner, using language reminiscent of the martyrdom of Stephen in chapter 7 of Acts (Christopher Norton, on p. 171 of Goldberg).
Whether Scrope was "so wise," i.e. learned, as the first line claims, is hard to know, since we have little of his library or writings. But there are three indications. One was his work for the Papacy, and his diplomatic work; if he hadn't been fairly knowledgeable, he wouldn't have gotten those tasks. Another is that he is reported to have taken a book with him to his execution, which he seems to have hoped would be buried with him (Christopher Norton, Goldberg, p. 199 n. 190). A third is his family's library. Henry, third Lord Scrope, the Archbishop's nephew, had an "impressive collection of books" (Christopher Norton, on p.190 of Goldberg). If the secular Scropes liked books, it is probable that the cleric in the family would also have been an avid scholar.
There is a window of Scrope in the York Minster, installed not too long after his death (the Minster was being substantially rebuilt at the time); there is a photo of it in the pictures section in Goldberg, showing what Christopher North says is a halo (Goldberg, p. 192) although it's hard to tell in the black-and-white photo. (And the caption, perhaps in an abundance of caution, calls him "Dominus," "Lord," not "Sanctus," "Saint.")
The Pope would impose a penalty on Henry for the murder in 1408; Henry never responded, but Henry V founded a monastery at Sheen, possibly to fulfill part of the penance (Allmand, p. 273).
Henry would eventually catch up with Northumberland; the Earl of Westmorland forced him to flee England in 1405, and in 1408 he lost the Battle of Bramham Moor in Yorkshire and was finally killed (Hicks, p. 208; Keen, p. 313).
Many said that the execution of Scrope was one of Henry's great crimes that resulted in his extremely difficult reign. Yet it should be recalled that Henry died in bed, although at the too-young age of about 46.
For those wishing to see more from the primary sources, in addition to Raine, Robbins, pp. 294-295, has an extensive quote from the English Chronicle, which gives some additional background.
Scrope never quite obtained sainthood -- I'm somewhat surprised that King Edward IV didn't try harder to get him canonized, since Scrope was martyred by the Lancastrians whom Edward had displaced. But maybe he was too much forgotten by then. Piroyansky's book focuses on three political martyrs who were treated as saints -- Scrope, Thomas of Lancaster, and Henry VI. France had a similar case in Jean Darc, who of course was sainted. But of the four, Lancaster was a puffed-up jerk who had no sense of morals and not much more brains; Jean was clearly schizophrenic, and Henry was mentally defective also although the surviving records don't show us how. I don't think any of the four actually meet the Catholic criteria for sainthood. But if any of them was a saint, I think it was Scrope, not Jean.
Scrope is a character in both of Shakespeare's Henry IV plays (he spelled the name "Scroop"), but of course the one thing guaranteed about a Shakespeare play is that the history will be entirely wrong; pay it no attention! The one interesting point is that the earliest printed text of 2 Henry IV, the quarto edition, drastically shortens the Scrope section of the play compared to the 1623 Folio. Every reference I have checked believes that this omission was deliberate censorship (it hurts the flow of the play), implying that, in some sense or other, Scrope's rebellion still roused alarm bells.
Is it possible to date this poem, other than saying that it must be older than the date in the manuscript? Piroyansky, p. 126, says that "Emphasis on Scrope's martyrological death characterized the cult in its early stages, and from the 1450s onward.... In-between these two periods, Scrope;s representation focused rather on his exemplary virtues as on his intercession and help." That hints that the poem is either very early or post-1450. But a post-1450 poem would probably have political or miraculous elements. Thus a very early date may be indicated. I'd hate to bet a lot on that, though.
APPENDIX: The ballad "Hereford and Norfolk"
Henry IV lived too soon for there to be much of a ballad tradition about him, but there is an item in the Percy Folio, cited above as the related piece "Hereford and Norfolk," which begins
Towe noble dukes of great renowne
That long had lived in fame
Throug(h) fatal envye were cast downe
And brought to sudden bane
It tells of how the Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk accuse each other of treason. Richard II orders a trial by combat to resolve the matter, and both lords agree. But just before they fight, Richard orders the combat halted -- and punishes both of them, banishing Hereford for ten years and Norfolk for life. But Hereford comes back and overthrows Richard. The rest of the story is covered above.
The piece is inaccurate, or at least deceptive, in any number of ways -- at least based on what we think happened. (As far as I know, no one has suggested using "Hereford and Norfolk" a source for histories.) An interesting one is calling Henry of Bolingbroke "Duke of Hereford." His first title was Earl of Derby. When he married his first wife Mary de Bohun, he gained her title of Earl of Hereford. (Wagner, p. 148) Some reports say that he was made Duke of Hereford, and Thomas Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, at the same time in 1397. When his father died, Bolingbroke became Duke of Lancaster -- but he could not claim the title of Duke of Lancaster until he claimed the kingship. Thus, although Bolingboke was for a long time known as "Hereford," he was only briefly known as "Duke of Hereford." Similarly Mowbray spent most of his time as Earl, not Duke, of Norfolk.
As Hales/Furnivall report, the song has the date of their proposed duel wrong.
From what little we know, it also appears to have the prelude wrong as well; the usual story is that Norfolk told Bolingbroke that Richard was after both of them, since they had been among the Lords Appellant earlier. Bolingbroke then accused Norfolk before the king (Kirby, pp. 46-48). The (non-)duel mostly went as described.
I suppose a case could make a case that, if I were going to index one Henry IV song, it should have been "Hereford and Norfolk," since it's in the Percy Folio. But it is very ornate, and looks like a professional job. "Archbishop Scrope" looks much more genuine. Goldberg, p. 8, declares "Archbishop Scrope" to be "a relic more of an active oral tradition of collective and cult remembrance than simply a literary curiosity." So I indexed the latter. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 6.5
File: MsDArScr

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2024 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.