As I began my project of brushing up on history, I thought I would begin with the time of the printing press and move forward from there. I came across Hume's History of England and thought that it seemed like as good of a place to start as any. The book is split into chapters based on who was the reigning monarch a the time. With each king I started on, I saw that there was some necessary information to pick on from the reign before -- Henry VII needed to be understood in terms of Richard III, etc -- so I worked backward, scanning the first few paragraphs, until I got to Edward II. And though I could have been interested in how his father's reign seemed to work out well, it was much more fun to start with a disaster.
Edward II was a weak king who angered his nobles by placing all of his attention in a series of "favorites." We are too far back to make any real pronouncement as to whether these were homosexual relationships or closer to what we'd call in the contemporary vernacular "bromances," but in any case the rule the nobles revolted, and his queen, Isabella, succeeded in deposing him and installed his son Edward III as the King with her and one of her own "favorites" (whom it is reported she lived with for a while away from the King) as the regents.
The way Hume writes makes some things clear about the texture of society in a hereditary monarchy. A particularly interesting bit after the queen had succeeded at usurping her husband:
But it was impossible that the people, however corrupted by the barbarity of the times, still further inflamed by faction, could forever remain insensible to the voice of nature. Here a wife had first deserted, next invaded, and then dethroned her husband; had made her minor son an instrument in this unnatural treatment of his father; had, by lying pretences, seduced the nation into a rebellion against their sovereign had pushed them into violence and cruelties that had dishonored them: all those circumstances were so odious in themselves, and formed such a complicated scene of guilt, that the least reflection sufficed to open men’s eyes, and make them detest this flagrant infringement of every public and private duty. The suspicions which soon arose of Isabella’s criminal commerce with Mortimer, the proofs which daily broke out of this part of her guilt, increased the general abhorrence against her; and her hypocrisy, in publicly bewailing with tears the king’s unhappy fate was not able to deceive even the most stupid and most prejudiced of her adherents.
Let's give extra attention to that first sentence:
But it was impossible that the people, however corrupted by the barbarity of the times, still further inflamed by faction, could forever remain insensible to the voice of nature.
There is so much going on in this one sentence that is worth discussing. The first is a term worth challenging; when Hume says "the people" either is making a real mistake in glossing over the reality -- which is entirely possible for the greatest of minds -- or he means something far different than we do by "the people." The events he is writing about here occurred in the late 1320s. Again, no printing press. So, in this context, public opinion is a very small network of people in proportion to the general populace. But notice how disorderly. This small band of feudal elites is "inflamed by faction" and as we move through the story of this era, it is clear to see how close to anarchy they can let society move. So contra the neo-reactionaries, it is not the forms of monarchy that are most important in preventing disorder, but rule of law and the strength of the state.
The story goes on:
The suspicions which soon arose of Isabella’s criminal commerce with Mortimer, the proofs which daily broke out of this part of her guilt, increased the general abhorrence against her; and her hypocrisy, in publicly bewailing with tears the king’s unhappy fate, was not able to deceive even the most stupid and most prejudiced of her adherents. In proportion as the queen became the object of public hatred the dethroned monarch, who had been the victim of her crimes and her ambition, was regarded with pity, with friendship, with veneration: and men became sensible, that all his misconduct, which faction had so much exaggerated, had been owing to the unavoidable weakness, not to any voluntary depravity, of his character.
After describing the events of a monarch's reign, Hume's book then takes a step back and talks about the character of the monarch as well as what sees as the bigger lessons. Of Edward II:
It is not easy to imagine a man more innocent and inoffensive than the unhappy king whose tragical death we have related; nor a prince less fitted for governing that fierce and turbulent people subjected to his authority. He was obliged to devolve on others the weight of government, which he had neither ability nor inclination to bear: the same indolence and want of penetration led him to make choice of ministers and favorites who were not always the best qualified for the trust committed to them: the seditious grandees, pleased with his weakness, yet complaining of it, under pretence of attacking his ministers, insulted his person and invaded his authority: and the impatient populace, mistaking the source of their grievances, threw all the blame upon the king, and increased the public disorders by their faction and violence. It was in vain to look for protection from the laws, whose voice, always feeble in those times, was not heard amidst the din of arms—what could not defend the king, was less able to give shelter to any of the people: the whole machine of government was torn in pieces with fury and violence; and men, instead of regretting the manners of their age, and the form of their constitution, which required the most steady and most skilful hand to conduct them, imputed all errors to the person who had the misfortune to be intrusted with the reins of empire.
On the mistaken belief that only tyrants could expect instability:
But though such mistakes are natural and almost unavoidable while the events are recent, it is a shameful delusion in modern historians, to imagine that all the ancient princes who were unfortunate in their government, were also tyrannical in their conduct; and that the seditions of the people always proceeded from some invasion of their privileges by the monarch. Even a great and a good king was not in that age secure against faction and rebellion, as appears in the case of Henry II.; but a great king had the best chance, as we learn from the history of the same period, for quelling and subduing them. Compare the reigns and characters of Edward I. and II. The father made several violent attempts against the liberties of the people: his barons opposed him: he was obliged, at least found it prudent, to submit: but as they dreaded his valor and abilities, they were content with reasonable satisfaction, and pushed no farther their advantages against him. The facility and weakness of the son, not his violence, threw every thing into confusion: the laws and government were overturned: an attempt to reinstate them was an unpardonable crime: and no atonement but the deposition and tragical death of the king himself could give those barons contentment. It is easy to see, that a constitution which depended so much on the personal character of the prince, must necessarily, in many of its parts, be a government of will, not of laws. But always to throw, without distinction, the blame of all disorders upon the sovereign would introduce a fatal error in politics, and serve as a perpetual apology for treason and rebellion: as if the turbulence of the great, and madness of the people, were not, equally with the tyranny of princes, evils incident to human society, and no less carefully to be guarded against in every well-regulated constitution.
Since Hume writes of "the turbulence of the great" and "madness of the people" as separate items, he would not fully agree with my note above. Still, as this is history from the time of a scarcity of records, and nothing existing from the lower orders, both Hume and I are making an inference as to "the people" and how much they influenced during this time. In any case, it is clear that the turbulence of "the great" is real problem of Edward II's reign.
Oligarchy is hardly a panacea.
