Part 20

From the numbers of the forces I now pass to their disposition on the field. With each of his successive narratives of the battle Mr. Oman has given us a special--and different--ground plan. In all three of these the English ‘battles’ are shown as composed of horse and foot,--the horse in the front of each, the foot behind. But in the earliest of these (1885) _three_ such ‘battles’ are shown, in the second (1895) _five_, and in the third (1898) _ten_.[601] Will the number increase indefinitely? Again, as to the famous “pottes,” dug as traps for the English horse. In the earliest narrative these are described as covering the Scottish flank “to the left,” and in the second, as dug by the Scots “on their flanks,” though in both the ground plans they are shown in a cluster on the left flank alone. When we turn, however, to the latest account (1898), we find them shown, no longer on the flanks, but as a single line along the Scottish front, and described as dug by Bruce “in front of his line,” so that they “practically covered the whole assailable front of the Scottish host” (p. 572).

Lastly, on that all-important point, the disposition of the English archers, we are shown in the first ground plan the “English archers considerably in advance of the main body,” and, indeed, almost all on the Scottish side of the burn. In his second they are still in front of the host, but no longer across the burn. In his third there are no “archers” shown, and the English ‘battles’ themselves are depicted as close up to the burn. But to realize the completeness of the contradiction, one must place side by side these two passages:

His [Edward II.’s] most fatal The worst point of all was mistake, however, was to place that in each corps the archers all his archers _in the front had been placed _behind_[603] the line_,[602] without any horsemen ... condemned from the protecting body of horsemen first to almost entire (‘Art of War in the Middle uselessness (‘History of the Art Ages,’ p. 101). of War,’ p. 575).

Poor Edward! He is first made to place his archers in front of his horsemen, and blamed for his folly in doing so; and then he is made to place them behind, and again blamed for his folly.

It is the same with the battle of Creçy (1346). Let any one compare the four narratives given in succession by Mr. Oman,[604] together with the three ground plans, and he will be fairly bewildered. The only thing of which we can be sure is that when Mr. Oman has adopted a view, he will himself afterwards abandon it. It is the same, again, with the numbers also. Mr. Oman, in his second narrative (as apparently in his first), reckons the English host at some 9,300 men (6,000 archers, 2,300 men-at-arms, 1,000 Welsh). In his fourth they exceed 20,000 (11,000 archers, 3,900 men-at-arms, 5,000 or 5,500 Welsh).

Need I pursue further this endless contradiction? It has been my object to warn the reader of Mr. Oman’s works on the Art of War to compare his successive views before adopting a single one of them. Whether on the field of Bannockburn or of Hastings we need a guide who knows, at least, his own mind, and whose “cocksureness” is not proportionate to the mutability of his views.

XV

The Marshalship of England

In his valuable essay on a document of which the origin has long been discussed, the ‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum,’[605] M. Bémont has drawn attention to the close association of this treatise, in the MSS. which contain it, with the coronation of Richard II. and with a treatise on the Marshal’s office. So close, indeed, is this association that

Coke affirme avoir vu de ce traité [the _Modus_] un exemplaire “écrit au temps de Henri II. qui contient la manière, la forme et l’usage de Gilbert de Scrogel, maréchal d’Angleterre, et qui indique comment il s’acquittait alors de son office.”

M. Bémont explains that Coke confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise on the Marshal’s office, but this is not, we shall find, quite the right explanation; nor is it the case that the Gilbert in question “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” As Coke’s error as to Gilbert has been very widely followed, it may be well to dispose of it once for all by tracing it to the source of his error.

We must turn for this to two MSS., the Cottonian Nero D. vi., and the MS. lat. 6,049 in the Bibliothèque Nationale (from which is taken Hardy’s, and consequently Dr. Stubbs’, text of the ‘Modus.’) Although M. Bémont has given us a brief analysis of both, he seems not to have observed that, for all purposes, they are duplicates, giving the same documents, as they do, in the same order. Now, the very fine Cottonian MS., which is of the time of Richard II., contains the claims to do service at his coronation (1377) as made before John of Gaunt sitting as High Steward.[606] Among them was that of Margaret, daughter and heiress of Thomas “of Brotherton,” marshal of England, who claimed to discharge that office by her deputy. I have italicised the important words:

Item quoad officium marescalli Anglie Margareta Marschall Comitissa Norff’ porrexit peticionem suam coram prefato Domino Senescallo in hec verba “A tres honure seignur le Roy de Castille et de Leon, Duc de Lancastre, et Seneschall’ Dengleterre supplie Margarete file et heir Thomas Brotherton’ nadgaires Conte de Norff’ et mareschall dengleterre destre accepte a loffice de mareschalcie ore al coronement nostre s^r le Roy come a son droit heritage apres la mort le dit Thomas son piere fesante loffice par son depute _come Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strogoil fist as coronement le Roy Henri second_, cestassavoir de paiser debatz en meson le Roy au iour de son coronement et faire liveree des herbergages et de garder les hoesses du chambre le Roy, pernant de chescun Baron et Conte faitz Chivaler au cel iour un palfrey ove une sele.” Supra quo audita peticione predicta, dictum fuit pro domino Rege ibidem quod officium illud in persona domini Regis in feodo remansit ad assignandum et contulendum cuicumque ipsi Regi placeret. Et supra hoc auditis tam pro domino quam pro prefata Comitissa pluribus racionibus et allegacionibus in hac parte pro eo quod curie quod finalis discussio negocii predicti propter temporis brevitatem ante coronacionem predictam fieri non potuit Henricus de Percy ex assensu et precepto ipsius Regis assignatus fuit ad officium predictum faciendum, etc., etc. (fo. 65_d_).

We have clearly here the origin of Coke’s error, when he writes:

Many very ancient copies you may find of this Modus, one whereof we have seen in the reign of H. 2, which contains the manner, forme, and usage of Gilbert de Scrogel, marshall of England, in what manner he occupied and used the said roome and office in all his time, and how he was admitted etc. at the coronation of H. 2 (‘Institutes,’ 4, xxi.).

For the error is only found in the above petition.

Now, it ought to be obvious that no such person as Gilbert Marshal, earl of ‘Strogoil,’ could have existed in 1154, for the Marshals did not inherit till a later time that Earldom, which was held in 1154 by the house of Clare. It has indeed been suggested that for “Gilbert” we should read “Richard,”[607] but this will not help us. For, to secure consistency, we should have to read “Richard _de Clare_.” Nevertheless, it has been loosely assumed, on no other evidence, that Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke (“Striguil”) acted as Marshal of England at the coronation of Henry II. in 1154.[608] And on this foundation antiquaries have raised theories to which we must return.

The real explanation is perfectly simple. On turning to fo. 86_d._ of the MS. we find an entry “de officio marescalcie,” which we can positively identify as taken from fo. 232 of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer’ (p. 759) where it is found among the “services” at Queen Eleanor’s coronation in 1236. Then turning back to Countess Margaret’s claim (fo. 65_d_), we find that it enshrines, in Norman French, this entry word for word. Therefore the whole error has been caused by the words “as coronement le Roy Henri second” (1154) applied to an entry which really related to the coronation of Queen Eleanor (1236)! “Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strigoil” had no existence at the former date, but he actually held the marshal’s rod in 1236.[609]

Camden, it seems, is responsible, in the first instance, for the theory that the office of “Marshal of England” was distinct in origin and character from that of Marshal of the Household. Strangely enough, in his earlier essay,[610] he made no such distinction, but, on the contrary, stated that Roger Bigod “was he which first stiled himselfe _marescallus Angliæ_, whereas all his predecessors used noe other stiles than the simple addition of _marescallus_.” In his second essay (3rd Nov., 1603)[611] he gave a list of the “Marshals of England,” deducing the office from a grant of Stephen, who “made Gilbert Clare earl of Pembroke and Marshal of England, with the state of inheritance, who ... was commonly called earl of Stryghall.” Thus arose the whole theory which Thoms, following Camden, adopts in his ‘Book of the Court’ (pp. 241, 244), namely, that the two offices were accidentally united by the marriage of William (the) Marshal (of the Household) with Isabel, heiress of the earls of Pembroke, “Marshals of England.”

From Thoms this theory has found its way into the ‘Complete Peerage.’ I need not here say more than that I have carefully examined the evidence, and that, after the alleged union of the offices, there is no trace of their being granted as more than one. When John confirmed (20th April, 1200) the marshalship to William Marshall, it was as

magistratum maresc’ curie nostre quam magistratum Gillebertus Marescallus Henrici Regis avi patris nostri et Johannes filius ipsius Gilleberti disrationaverat coram predicto Rege Henrico in curia sua.[612]

And when William’s younger son Gilbert obtained it from Henry III., after his brother’s death, we read of the king (11th June, 1234)--

Tradens ei virgam marescalcie curie sue sicut moris est et sicut eam antecessores ejus melius et liberius habuerunt.[613]

It would not be in place here to discuss the growth of the office with the growth of the administration, just as the constableship developed in its descent from Miles of Gloucester through the Bohuns. The one point to keep in mind is that the office of marshal descended from Gilbert _temp._ Hen. I., to Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, at whose death in December (1306), the marshalship, by his own arrangement, reverted to the king.

It was the king’s intention to bestow it on his young son Thomas “of Brotherton”; but as he was at the time only six years old, it was given, ‘during pleasure,’ 3rd September, 1307, to Robert de Clifford,[614] and, a few months later, to Nicholas de Segrave (12th March, 1308), also ‘during pleasure.’[615] These appointments are important for their bearing on a note by Dr. Stubbs that

William le Mareschal had served as marshall at the coronation, but was superseded in 1308 by Nicholas Segrave, with whom he went to war in 1311. It was probably his dismissal that offended Lancaster in 1308; see ‘M. Malmesb.,’ p. 103; and he may be considered as a strong adherent of the earl (of Lancaster).[616]

It is the case that William Marshall had carried the great gilt spurs at the coronation of Edward II. (Feb., 1308), but we do not find his name on the Patent Rolls among the appointments to the “Marshalsea of England.” He can, therefore, only have been chosen to act at the coronation, and was doubtless selected, in preference to the temporary Marshal, as being hereditary Marshal of Ireland. Summoned to Parliament as a baron in 1309, he became one of the ‘Ordainers’ in 1310.

Robert de Clifford, whom Segrave replaced, was afterwards concerned in Gaveston’s death (or, at least, pardoned as being so),[617] but was clearly a strong supporter of the king at the beginning of 1308. And as appointments and favours were bestowed upon him for two or three years afterwards, one cannot think that he was out of favour, or that he can be alluded to in the passage cited by Dr. Stubbs from the Monk of Malmesbury:

(1309) unde magnates terræ cœperunt hæc pro malo habere et præcipue comes Lancastriæ, quia unus ex familiaribus suis, procurante Petro, ejectus erat ab officio suo.[618]

It could not in any case apply, as Dr. Stubbs suggests, to William le Mareschal. Professor Tout not only dates Segrave’s appointment a year too late, but goes so far as to say that, against him,--

William Marshal, a peer of Parliament and a collateral representative of the great Marshal family, claimed the office as devolving on him by hereditary right.[619]

It is obvious that the only person who could make such a claim was the disinherited brother of the late earl of Norfolk.

On February 10, 1316, the Marshalship of England became once more an hereditary office, being bestowed on Thomas ‘de Brotherton,’ then earl of Norfolk, and the heirs male of his body.[620]

Let me here again insist that the fundamental error has been the anachronism interpolated in Countess Margaret’s coronation claim (1377). This is really the sole foundation for the statement that the Clares earls of Pembroke held the office of Marshal of England; and it can be conclusively shown to arise from mistaking the coronation of 1236 for that of 1154.[621]

Having thus traced to its origin the confusion which made Richard Strongbow and his father Gilbert marshals of England, I may now deal with the further confusion which assigns to Richard ‘Strongbow’ a legitimate son Walter. In Ormerod’s ‘Strigulensia’ (p. 63), in Mr. Archer’s biography of Richard,[622] and now in the ‘Complete Peerage,’ the fact is accepted as certain. The authority for this statement is a Tintern Abbey charter, in which William Marshal the younger confirms certain grants (22nd March, 1223)--

pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii Ricardi filii Gilberti Strongbow avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei, et Ysabelle matris mee (‘Mon. Ang.,’ v. 267).

A very able genealogist, Mr. G. W. Watson, holds that this charter makes the existence of a son Walter “certain.”[623] But as the text appeared to me obviously corrupt, I referred to the Arundel MS.,[624] from which it is printed in the ‘Monasticon.’ I there made the startling discovery that, as I thought possible, the true text is this (in a 15th century transcript of a 14th century _inspeximus_ of the 13th century charter):

pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii _Ricardi_, _Gilberti Strongbowe_, Ricardi filii Gilberti Strongbowe avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei et Ysabelle matris mee[625] (fo. 1).

This makes perfect sense, giving as it does the descent of the Honour from Walter Fitz Richard (de Clare), founder of Tintern. But a much later hand (? 17th century) has coolly run a pen through the three words I have italicised, thus making nonsense of the passage, which was then, in this mutilated form, printed by Dugdale! It is but a further instance of the havoc which he and others have wrought in the genealogy of the famous house of Clare.

As this charter is of independent value for its early (apparently earliest)[626] mention of the name ‘Strongbow,’ its date is of importance; Mr. Archer states that it is “dated Strigul, 22nd March, 1206,”[627] an obviously impossible date. Its real date was 22nd March, 1223[628] (7 Hen. III.).

We may now return to the office of Marshal in the 14th century. On June 3, 1317, the king called on the barons of the Exchequer to inform him from their records, “quæ et cujusmodi feoda marescalli Angliæ qui pro tempore fuerunt et eorum ministri temporibus progenitorum nostrorum videlicet de pane, vino, cereolis, et candelis percipere et habere consueverunt.” For reply they sent him the relative extract from the “Constitutio domus regis.”[629] In 4 Edward III., “Thomas counte Norfolk et marshall d’Engleterre” petitioned the king for his fees “qui appendent a son office de la marechausie dedeinz l’ostell et dehors auxi, come ses predecesseurs countes mareschauls ount estre servy”; and he annexed a list of them based on the above return.[630] Again, on April 13, 1344, the king called on the Exchequer for a return from its records “de feodis quam de aliis quibuscunque quæ pertinent ad officium comitis marescalli et mariscalciæ Angliæ,” etc., etc. Again they sent him the relative extract “in quadam constitutione de domo regis antiquitus facta”; but they added the passage “in Rubro Libro Scaccarii” on Queen Eleanor’s coronation (1236), and a ‘Dialogus’ passage on the fees due to the Marshal from those he imprisoned for default at the Exchequer.[631]

Lastly, we have in the treatise on the Marshal’s office, as given in Nero D. vi., the following passage at its close (fol. 86_d_):

In rubro libro de scaccario Regis folio xxx^o sic continetur de marescallo.

Et preter hoc debet magister marescalcie habere dicas de donis et liberacionibus que fuerint de Thesauro Regis et de sua camera et debet habere dicas contra omnes officiales Regis ut testis per omnia. Quatuor marescalli qui serviunt familie Regis tam clericis quam militibus quam ministris die qua faciunt herbergeriam vel extra curiam in negocio Regis morantibus, viij d. in die et galonem vini expens’ et xij frustra candelarum si extra tres de die in diem homini suo et cand’ plenar’ quod si aliquis marescallorum missus fuerit in negocio Regis viij d. ta[ntu]m servientes Marescallorum si fuerint missi in negocio Regis unusquisque in die iij d. sin autem in domo Regis comedent.

* * * * *

De officio marescalcie servivit Gilbertus comes de Stroghull cuius est officium tumultus sedare in domo Regis, liberaciones officiorum[632] facere, hostia aule Regis custodire. Recipit autem de quolibet Barone facto milite a Rege et quolibet comite palefridum cum sella.

It is this last extract, as I explained above, which is reproduced in Norman-French in Countess Margaret’s petition, with the interpolation of the words which have caused all the confusion.

And here it is necessary to observe that the interesting reference it contains to the knighting of a ‘Baron’ by the king is reduced to what Mr. Freeman would have termed “hideous nonsense” in the official edition of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer.’ We there read:

Recepit autem de quolibet arma, facto milite a Rege, et [de] quolibet comite ea die palefridum cum sella (p. 759).

In the ‘Red Book’ itself, indeed, the text is now illegible, but Mr. Hall tells us that he used the Hargrave MS. for “restoring certain defaced or missing passages” (p. li.). Now in the Hargrave MS. (fo. 132[633]) the reading is “as clear as a pikestaff”; it could not be clearer if it were printed. And it is the same reading as we find in the above extracts:

Recipit autem de quol[ibet] _Barone_ facto milite a rege et quol[ibet] com[ite] ea die, etc.

Yet Mr. Hall reads: “de quolibet _arma_, facto.” Really, when one knows that he has undertaken to teach how mediæval MSS. should be edited,[634] one is driven again reluctantly to ask whether such editing as this should be styled a farce or a burlesque.[635]

Before returning to the ‘Modus,’ the point from which we started, we must clear up the confusion that surrounds the title of Earl Marshal.

Camden, apparently, was led by the error in the claim of 1377 to assign the treatise on the office of Marshal to the time of Henry II.[636] Coke went further, and, as M. Bémont says, confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise. It is the close connexion between the two that leads up to my theory.[637]

There is a transcript in Nero D. vi., with a beautifully illuminated initial, of the patent by which Richard II. created Thomas Mowbray earl of Nottingham Marshal of England and Earl Marshal (12th Jan., 1386), in tail male. Here again the confusion has been terrible. The Record Commission’s Catalogue of the Cottonian MSS. describes it as “Literæ R. Ricardi II. constituentes Tho. _de Brotherton_, com. Nottingham,[638] Marescallum Angliæ A^o. 1386,” and it is this doubtless, which has led several writers into grave error, down to M. Bémont, who enters the document as “les lettres patentes de Richard II. instituant Thomas de Brotherton maréchal d’Angleterre” (p. 472). But, for my purpose, the important point is that this is the first grant of the office of “_Earl_ Marshal.” On the one hand, a high authority asserts in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ that Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, received “the office of Earl Marshal” in 1246; on the other, we read in the ‘Complete Peerage’ that an “_Earl_ Marshal” was first created in 1397.[639] Neither statement is correct. On June 30, 1385, Richard bestowed on the earl of Nottingham “the office of Marshal of England,” which we have traced above.[640] Dugdale, citing the record below, wrongly states that Thomas was “constituted _Earl_ Marshal of England” for life on this occasion, and is followed in this by Professor Tout.[641] Thomas certainly styled himself “Earl Marshal and of Nottingham” in the month following, but this was one of the assumptions of the time. He was only so created by the patent which follows. It is desirable, therefore, to give here the exact wording of the grant:

Sciatis quod cum nos nuper de gracia nostra speciali concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome comiti Notyngh’ officium marescalli Anglie ad totam vitam suam, Nos jam de uberiori gratia nostra concessimus prefato consanguineo nostro officium predictum una cum nomine et honore comitis Marescalli habend’ sibi et heredibus suis masculis de corpore suo exeuntibus cum omnimodis feodis proficuis et pertinenciis quibuscunque dicto officio qualitercunque spectantibus.

This grant, which is dated at Westminster, 12th January, 1386 (9 Ric. II.), is, oddly enough, unknown even to experts. Dugdale had missed it, and it is consequently ignored in Wallon’s ‘Richard II.,’ in Professor Tout’s biography of Nottingham,[642] and in the ‘Complete Peerage.’ It illustrates not only the high favour in which Nottingham still stood, but the _entourage_ of the king at the time, which included several of those about to lead the opposition.[643]

The above grant is duly referred to in the so-called creation of February 10, 1397. This is headed in the Rolls of Parliament:

Une chartre du Roy faite a le Conte Mareschall touchant son Office de Mareschall d’Engleterre....

Sciatis quod cum nuper per literas nostras patentes de gratia nostra speciali concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome Comiti Notyngh’ Officium Marescalli Anglie, una cum nomine et honore Comitis Marescalli, habendum sibi et heredibus suis masculis, etc.... Nos.... volentes proinde pro statu et honore ipsius Comitis uberius providere, de gratia nostra speciali, in presenti Parliamento nostro concessimus pro Nobis et heredibus nostris eidem Comiti dictum officium ac nomen, titulum, et honorem Comitis Marescalli Anglie habendum sibi et heredibus suis masculis, etc. (Then follow additional concessions.)