Читать бесплатно онлайн книгу автора  The Minority of Henry the Third

Kate Norgate

NOTE I

THE TRUCES OF 1216–1217

NOTE II

THE BLOCKED GATE AT LINCOLN

NOTE III

FALKES DE BRÉAUTÉ AT LINCOLN

2. If there was a gate at the southern junction of the walls, it would very probably be “of great antiquity”—as old as the second Roman occupation of Lindum; for the wall itself thereabouts was certainly Roman, as some fragments still remaining testify to this day. The West Gate, on the other hand, in 1217 could not well be more than a hundred and fifty years old. But the poet’s description of the blocked gate as “une vielle porte qui ert de grant antequite” is a detail which—like his use of the word ancienement in l. 16509—need not be taken literally. Such phrases, when used by even a prose writer in an uncritical age, may mean almost anything; moreover, epithets and descriptive phrases of all kinds when used by a medieval writer of verse may occasionally mean nothing. The poet had probably never seen the gate which he was describing; those who told him about it were soldiers, not archæologists; neither he nor they could have a very definite idea as to when it had been built, or how long it had been obstructed. Possibly, however, his use of the expressions above quoted may be accounted for in another way. Lincoln “above hill” unquestionably possessed one gate which even in 1217 could hardly fail to strike the most ignorant observer as being already “of great antiquity.” Some of the poet’s informants may have mentioned this to him, without specifying that it was the North Gate or giving it a name. Others may have told him that the North Gate was called New Port. If he was not further told that the “New Port” and the ancient gate were identical, the fact of their identity could not possibly enter his head; and as the North Gate and the blocked gate were evidently the only two gates (of the city) which played any part in the day’s fighting until it reached the Bar-Gate far away to the south beyond the river, he would naturally conclude that since the first was the “new” gate, the second must be the ancient one.

NOTE IV

THE END OF THE BATTLE OF LINCOLN

The story of Falkes’s entrance into the castle and his sally thence into the town rests on the authority of Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 22). In the Hist. G. le Mar. the only mention of Falkes in the whole account of the day is in the following lines: “E quant les gens Fauques oïrent Itels moz.” [i.e., Bishop Peter’s report to the host about the gate] “molt s’en esjoïrent; Trestot avant dedenz entrerent, Mes leidement les reuserent Cil dedenz, qu’il n’i furent gueres; Tost lor changierent lor afeires” (ll. 16535–40). Professor Tout (p. 251) says the poet’s “story supposes that Falkes did not enter the castle, but penetrated directly into the town. This is clear from the fact that when beaten they” (?) “were driven out into the open country. There the bishop encountered somewhat later the fugitive soldiers and roughly maltreated them for their cowardice.” For this statement he cites as his authority ll. 16573–6: “E quant les servanz encontrerent Qui leidement parti s’en erent Molt les leidirent cil qui vindrent Quand dedenz la presse les tindrent.” This passage is separated from the one which I have quoted above by thirty-three lines; and these thirty-three lines are entirely occupied with the discourse between the bishop and the Marshal, and the mission of the scouts, summarized in my p. 39. There is nothing to connect ll. 16573–6 with either Falkes or Peter. Cil qui vindrent cannot refer to the bishop individually. There is nothing to identify the “servanz qui leidement parti s’en erent” with Falkes’s men; nothing to suggest that Peter was one of “those who came” (whence and whither we know not) and “met them” [i.e., the “servanz”] and “greatly abused them when they had them fast in the crowd”; and nothing to indicate that this meeting, described by the poet as having taken place dans la presse, occurred as Mr. Tout says it did, in “the open country”; nothing to connect these four lines with anybody or anything previously mentioned in the poem.

NOTE V

THE TREATY OF KINGSTON

At first glance these two accounts might seem to relate to two distinct occurrences at two different gates. “La dererene porte,” which the cow blocked against the fugitives when they had been driven beyond the bridge “tote la rue contreval qui s’en veit dreit a l’hospital,” is clearly the Great (or West) Bar-Gate. This was quite literally the “outermost” or “hindermost” gate of Lincoln to the southward; and outside it, on the south side of the Sincil Dyke, stood two hospitals, one belonging to the Order of Sempringham and named after the Holy Sepulchre, the other a lazar-house dedicated to the Holy Innocents (Sympson, Lincoln, pp. 386, 338, 344, 351). On the other hand, Roger’s porta australis with the inconvenient sliding bar might, if we looked at his story alone, be taken to represent the south gate of the city proper, i.e., the Stone Bow. But a comparison of his story with that of the poet shews this to be impossible. Had it been the case, the greatest capture of prisoners must have taken place inside the gate; whereas the Biographer clearly indicates that most of the rebel barons (the De Quincys, Fitz Walter, “e moult d’autres dont point ne m’ennuie”) were captured in the fight on and near the bridge, i.e., outside the Stone Bow (ll. 16828–16939); and even after all this, there were still so many left that when the “hindermost gate” was at last reached, “La fu plus fort li encombriers, La ont molt pris de chevaliers” (ll. 16955–6). Moreover, ll. 16947–51 (“En la porte ... nule maniere”), especially ll. 16947–8, where this same “hindermost gate” is specially distinguished as cele qui le fleel porte, tally so closely with Roger’s words about the flagellum and its effects that we cannot separate the two incidents. The difference between the two accounts is simply that the poet gives us the whole topography and tells the whole story, cow and all, while Roger leaves out the cow-incident, just as he has left out several things of far greater importance (the second rally and repulse of the French among them) in his story of the battle as a whole.

NOTE VI

THE TENURE OF CROWN OFFICES DURING THE MINORITY

(1) The so-called “form of peace” speaks throughout of what Louis and Henry shall promise and swear, never once of what they have promised and sworn. It seems therefore to date from a time previous to the solemn oaths which Roger of Wendover says they took at Kingston. The actual treaty would not be sealed till the oaths were sworn.

NOTE VII

THE PAPAL LETTERS OF 1223

I venture to think that Mr. Turner’s suggested interpretation of these two passages is a little overstrained. The words of Falkes need not imply any formal act of delivery posterior to the one whereby Peter had originally received the castles to hold for John. Falkes’s “Complaint” is not a legal document, and we are neither obliged nor entitled to construe its phraseology as if it were such. If certain castles which John had committed to a certain man were left in that man’s custody by Henry’s guardians, they were practically committed or entrusted to him by the guardians as well as by John; and a reason why Falkes should bring Gualo’s name into the matter, rather than the name of the Marshal, is not far to seek. Falkes’s “Complaint” is a piece of special pleading addressed to a special person—the Pope—for the purpose of inducing him (as supreme guardian of his feudatary King Henry) to intervene in English affairs in behalf of the complainant Falkes himself; the case of Peter de Maulay being mentioned as an illustration of the ill-treatment which (according to Falkes) the leaders of the party now in power in England were meting out to faithful old servants of King John. In these circumstances it is perfectly natural that whatever sanction, whether explicit or tacit, was, at a time when these leaders were in a subordinate position, given by the highest authorities in the realm to Peter’s retention of the castles in his keeping, should be described as having been given by the Legate. Nor need the words of Pandulf bear any more definite meaning. The letter in which they occur was misdated by Dr. Shirley; its true date is 10th May, 1219 (see Prof. Powicke in Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 229), when Pandulf had been Legate about five months, and regent less than as many weeks. That he, at this time, supposed the castles to have been delivered to their wardens by Gualo is no proof that such was the fact. Moreover, the wording of his inquiry suggests that he had no very distinct idea of the thing about which he was inquiring; indeed, it almost suggests some uncertainty on his part whether what he asked for existed at all. I venture to think that—Ralf de Neville’s answer being unfortunately lost—in this uncertainty the question still remains. It would be a very remarkable circumstance if Gualo, who so scrupulously refrained from all shew of intervention in the administration of civil affairs, went out of his way to take upon himself a function utterly alien from his natural sphere of action, and one which there could be no conceivable reason for associating with his office rather than with that of the lay regent. It would be equally remarkable that the castellans, if they considered themselves entitled to retain their wardenships without re-appointment by letters patent from the Governor of King and Kingdom, in the new sovereign’s name, should have quietly submitted to re-appointment in a wholly unprecedented manner at the hands of a foreign ecclesiastic. And it is scarcely less remarkable that a proceeding so unusual, if it really took place, should have left no trace in the official records of the Kingdom and been passed over in silence by all the chroniclers of the time.

NOTE VIII

THE ROYAL CASTLES IN 1223–1224

“Cum a sede apostolica jussio processisset ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis a cunctis tenentibus redderentur, adjuncta clausula quod rex ipse jam adultus factus compelli non posset habere tutorem vel curatorem, nisi ad causam, invitus; dictus justiciarius et complices sui ... procuraverunt ut duo barones” etc. (here follows the story of Lacy and Musard and of Chester’s rising, see above, pp. 203, 204). “Interim tamen ... cum rex apud Northamptonam sollemnitatem Natalis sicut mos est celebrasset, effectum est ... ut tam comes Cestriae quam alii supranominati ad regis curiam vocarentur. Quibus ... in ipsius et archiepiscopi et quorundam episcoporum qui simul aderant presentia constitutis, exhibitae fuerunt quaedam literae apostolicae in quibus continebatur ut esset domino regi restitutio rerum suarum facienda” (pp. 261–262). In the first of the two passages which I have italicized the compulsory surrender of all royal castles etc. seems to be represented as the chief point dealt with in the papal mandate referred to, the King’s majority being apparently treated merely as an adjunct; while in the second passage the former point is still further emphasized by the latter not being mentioned at all. I think we may gather from these two passages that the papal mandates which Falkes had in his mind were not those preserved in the Royal Letters and the Red Book, but those whose substance is preserved by Roger of Wendover. The Dunstable annalist says that Henry’s quasi-majority was decided upon and proclaimed “by order of the Pope and assent of the barons,” i.e., the Pope’s letter to Peter, Hubert, and William Brewer was published in a council at London, on the King’s return from Wales (see above, footnote 921). The Rolls shew that Henry reached London on 22nd October and remained there till 8th November (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 566 b, 567, 575 b, 576). As, however, it was not till 9th December that Henry began to attest his own letters, it seems that either the annalist’s date must not be taken literally, or the proclamation remained inoperative for more than a month. I think it can be shewn that the latter was the case. The Rolls indicate that the affair of Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard had taken place before 15th November (above, footnote 924). Falkes says that after that affair Henry and Hubert went to Gloucester; the Rolls shew that they were at Gloucester 16–22nd November (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 575 b–576 b). Chester’s attempt on the Tower must have been made during their absence from London. We know from the Rolls that they were there again from 28th November till 12th, perhaps till 19th December (ib. pp. 576 b–579); the rebels’ appearance before them and the scene between Peter and Hubert must thus have taken place there between 28th November and 5th December, since, as we learn from Falkes (p. 261), the “truce” arranged immediately after it by Langton began on 6th December. It was only in this December council that “the papal letters which declared him (Henry) of age were acted upon” (Powicke, Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 221), i.e., that the King began to attest his own letters, and, probably, the great seal began to follow the King instead of being kept at the Exchequer (ib., p. 224). Falkes, however, seems to imply that the papal command “ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis a cunctis tenentibus redderentur” was known in England before the affair of Lacy and Musard took place. On the other hand he tells us that certain Apostolic letters “in quibus continebatur quod esset domino regi restitutio rerum suarum facienda” were “exhibited”—seemingly for the first time—at Christmas. To me all this seems to indicate that the letter to Peter, Hubert, and William and the letter to the prelates, had both reached the English court before the end of October; that the first was published then as the annalist says, but was not carried into immediate effect; that the second was published, as Roger implies, early in December, but that a number of barons—Falkes among them—not being present at its publication, had no official knowledge of it till it was “exhibited” to them at Christmas.

NOTE IX

FALKES AND THE “THIRTY PAIRS OF LETTERS.”

On 7th January, 1224, the Bishop of Winchester was ordered to deliver the castles of Winchester, Porchester, and Southampton, with the sheriffdom of Hampshire, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Within five days, however, Jocelyn was superseded in all these bailiwicks by the Earl of Salisbury. On 12th January Hertford castle was transferred from its newly appointed constable, William of Eynesford, to Stephen de Sedgrave (ib. p. 420), who again was on 23rd January superseded there by Richard de Argentine (ib. p. 425). An order was issued on 12th January for the transfer of Windsor and Odiham to Hubert de Burgh, but seems to have been cancelled, for on 4th February these two castles were still in the hands to which they had been committed on 30th December—those of the Primate, who was now bidden to deliver them to Osbert Giffard (ib. pp. 420, 421). On 2nd February Falkes was ordered to deliver Carisbrook and Christchurch to Waleran the German (“le Theys”) to whom the King had given them in custody together with the lands of the late Earl Willam of Devon and the castle of Plympton (ib. p. 427). On 7th February the Bishop of Norwich was ordered to deliver Marlborough castle to Robert Wolf (“Lupus”; ib. p. 426). On 2nd March another new constable was appointed to Marlborough, Robert de Meisy, who was at the same time made constable of Luggershall; whether John Little, who was ordered to deliver these two fortresses to Meisy (ib. p. 428), was sub-warden of them for the recently appointed Wolf or for Pandulf, does not appear. On 11th March Robert de Lexington was bidden to deliver Bolsover to William Brewer (ib. p. 429), for whom he had received it in January. On 13th March Pandulf was desired to deliver Bristol “without delay” to Reginald de Hurle and John Little (ib.). Lastly, on the same day, Plympton, of which Waleran “le Theys” had been appointed custodian six weeks before, was committed to Walter de Falkenberg (ib. p. 430). This appointment, like that of Waleran, proved ineffectual, owing to the resistance of Falkes. Falkes had on 18th January been ordered to deliver the shires of Bedford and Buckingham to William de Pateshull, and those of Cambridge and Huntingdon to Richard de Argentine (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 581 b; cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 421); the two latter shires were immediately transferred again, to Geoffrey de Heathfield (Pat. Rolls, l.c.).

NOTE X

BEDFORD CASTLE

The number of illegal disseisins of which Falkes was convicted at Dunstable in June, 1224 (above, p. 231), is officially stated as sixteen: “Cum ... Falcatius ... coram judicibus eisdem in sexdecim causis fuisset convictus ... et ad restitutionem ablatorum et satisfactionem plenam debito modo condemnatus,” are the words of King Henry himself in a letter to the Pope (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 225). Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 94) says “Cecidit in misericordia regis de plusquam triginta paribus litterarum, de quibus singulis in centum libris debuerat condemnari.” Matthew Paris (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 84, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 263) copies this; and in an original paragraph of his own, inserted at the end of Roger’s account of the Bedford affair, he says that Falkes “xxxii liberos homines in manerio de Luituna sine judicio de suis tenementis disseisiavit” (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 88). The Dunstable annalist (p. 90) says “Falchasius de triginta quinque saisinis convictus est.” Of course the evidence of the King’s letter is decisive. Roger’s odd phrase, “de plusquam triginta paribus litterarum,” reveals how the number came to be doubled. At some date obviously earlier (probably not less, possibly much more, than six months earlier, since the complaint of the earls is addressed to the Justiciar, not the King) than this Dunstable affair, the Earls of Salisbury and Pembroke, writing to Hubert about Falkes’s outrageous conduct towards John Marshal, reported “quod dominus Johannes Marescallus nobis per literas suas mandavit quod, cum misisset literas domini regis domino Falcasio de Brealte pro bosco suo ... idem Falkasius ad literas domini regis respondit quod si ei misisset triginta paria literarum domini regis, pacem utique non haberet de praedicto bosco,” etc. (Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 221, 222). This story of Falkes’s declaration, uttered in a moment of anger, that “if thirty pairs of royal letters should be sent to him” in behalf of one particular person, he would pay no heed to them, seemingly became confused, before it reached S. Alban’s and Dunstable, with a wholly different matter, and the “thirty pairs of letters” were supposed to have been actually sent, as the consequence of his conviction before Henry de Braybroke of the same number of disseisins; Roger or his informant inserted a “plusquam” on the strength of which Matthew raised the number to thirty-two; while the Dunstable annalist further improved it to thirty-five.

NOTE XI

THE HANGING OF THE BEDFORD GARRISON

Ralf of Coggeshall’s story is not self-consistent. He begins by stating, as a positive fact, that John had given Bedford castle to Falkes by charter. Afterwards, however, this fact dwindles down to an assertion reported to have been made by Falkes in answer to a demand in 1223–1224 for restitution of the castle either to the King or to Beauchamp. No charter such as is here mentioned appears in the Charter Rolls of John’s reign. This of course does not prove that no such charter ever existed; nor does the fact that the Patent and Close Rolls of Henry’s reign contain no hint of Falkes’s having ever, before the capture of Henry de Braybroke, been summoned to deliver up the castle, prove that no such summons was ever issued. The words of Falkes himself and those of the Pope—these latter being of course based on information derived from Falkes or his friends—imply that he claimed to hold the castle in fee. But even if this claim was really based on a charter, it could scarcely have availed to bar the claim of the King; for by the treaty of Kingston the Crown as well as its subjects, was to regain whatever it had been seised of before the war, and it had certainly been seised of Bedford castle from the time of Henry II till the autumn of 1215; it seems therefore that Henry might have considered himself entitled to treat a charter granted by his father after that date as null and void, and thus to call Bedford castrum nostrum. With regard to its custody as a royal castle, the law of the matter may very likely have been quite uncertain. It may have been at least arguable that the definition laid down in the treaty did not necessarily cover the custody of a royal castle even if held by hereditary right; and it must be remembered that we do not know what was the precise nature of the tenure by which Beauchamp had held that office. The Barnwell writer, however, certainly appears to have gone too far in stating that the castle itself “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum de Bello Campo.” It had belonged to William’s ancestors; but William’s father had practically renounced all claim to its ownership by fining with King Richard for the office of its constable. William’s right in it was at the utmost only an hereditary title to that office. Whether John did grant the castle to Falkes in fee, or whether he died seised of it himself (as Hubert said)—having given merely the custody of it, as well as the enjoyment of the honour of Bedford, to Falkes quamdiu regi placuerit—we cannot determine. From Henry’s accession till autumn, 1223, any question which might exist on the subject between Falkes and the Crown was of little practical consequence. It was recognized on all hands that throughout that period whatever castles Falkes held, whether as constable or as lord, he held loyally for the King and used for the King’s interest with a rare capability and diligence. Henry’s counsellors might well prefer to leave this particular detail of the great castle-problem undiscussed usque ad aetatem regis. Still more natural was it that Beauchamp’s claim should get no hearing till Falkes had incurred forfeiture in his turn. Then King and Council decided that it would be prudent to satisfy Beauchamp without giving him a chance of treading in Falkes’s steps or repeating his own act of 1215; and they did so by pulling the half ruined castle down altogether and granting him the site, with leave to build himself not a castle, but a dwelling-house, out of its stones (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 632, 632 b).

INDEX