Hitherto, Christopher Brooke has been most frequently noted by literary historians for his friendship with John Donne in the 1590s, and his imprisonment for assisting in Donne's elopement with Ann More. He is better known as the addressee of Donne's poems, 'The Storm' and 'The Calm', than as the author of his own.1 The chief of these, The Ghost of Richard the Third (1614), has been obscured by the combination of three factors in literary history. The first is the long shadow cast by Shakespeare's Richard the Third, written some twenty years before Brooke's poem. Numerous nineteenth-century scholars mention the poem, but quickly dismiss it as a pale imitation of Shakespeare's play. Their commentary largely consists of identifying passages where Brooke may have echoed the play.2 Secondly, these commentators have also placed the work firmly in the genre of history writing, and this has obscured the satiric element of the poem, and Brooke's self-conscious placement of it within the tradition of satire, and his striking use of Richard as a satiric voice. Finally, both these tendencies have erred in foregrounding the literary at the expense of the historical. Brooke's principal public role at the time was a political one, and the poem should be considered in relation to that work.3 At the same time, as a literary work, The Ghost of Richard the Third has been largely ignored by political historians, despite the fact that it was published in the midst of the Addled Parliament, in which Brooke was heavily involved. Michelle O'Callaghan's very recent article, 'Talking Politics: Tyranny, Parliament, and Christopher Brooke's The Ghost of Richard the Third (1614)'4 goes a long way in considering the place of the poem in Brooke's parliamentary career. The present study will briefly outline Christopher Brooke's role in the Addled Parliament of 1614, and from there consider his use of the satiric mode during this tumultuous period. I will draw first on the introduction to the poem offered by William Browne's Eclogue 5 from The Shepherd's Pipe (1614), and then focus on how Brooke adapted the satiric voice and the usual outlines of the Virgilian poetic career to fit his political situation.Brooke's time at Lincoln's Inn in the 1590s was followed by a busy career in law and parliament; he sat as MP for York in the parliaments of 1604-10, 1614, 1620, 1624, and 1625. He emerged as a highly active member in the Addled Parliament of 1614, making numerous speeches from the floor, and being selected to serve on various committees.5 Brooke was one of the more prominent lawyers sitting as members of the Lower House, and along with such men as Sir Edwin Sandys and John Hoskins zealously promoted its rights.6This Parliament was embroiled in controversy already during the election leading up to it. There were rumours that the King and his chief supporters were 'undertaking' to find places for a high number of supporters. This matter was pursued in the opening weeks of the Parliament, with Brooke serving on the Committee of Privileges that examined it.7 The Parliament had been called to fulfill James's dire financial situation: however, the Lower House resisted any granting of supply until their grievances had been addressed. Chief among these grievances was the matter of impositions, that is, the King's imposing of duties on various domestic and imported goods. Already in April it seemed that an impasse was possible, with neither the King nor the Lower House willing to make the first step towards conciliation. Tensions increased, not only between the King and the Lower Houses, but also between the Upper and Lower House, as the Peers, especially the Bishops, refused to confer with the Commons about their Bill against Impositions. Bishop Neile in particular incensed the Commons by a speech in the House of Lords on 23 May where he expressed fear that if 'we should meete wth the Lower House there would passe from them undewtyfull and seditious speches unfitte for us to heare'. …