Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11137-9 - Writing to the King: Nation, Kingship, and Literature in England, 1250-1350 David Matthews Excerpt More information Introduction the knight of the letter: writing to the king As King Edward II celebrated the feast of Pentecost in 1317 in Westminster Hall with his magnates, a surprising visitor arrived: A certain woman, dressed and equipped in the guise of an entertainer, mounted on a good horse bearing an entertainer’s medallions, entered the said hall, circu- lated amongst the tables in the mode of an entertainer, ascended to the dais by the step, boldly approached the royal table, laid down a certain letter before the king, and, hauling on the bridle, having greeted the guests, without commotion or hindrance departed on the horse. At which the great as well as the less, looking by turns at one another, and judging themselves to be scorned by such a deed of daring and female mockery, sharply rebuked the doorkeepers and stewards concerning that entry and exit. But they, thrown into perplexity, made a virtue of necessity, saying that it was not the practice of the king to deny access, on such a solemn feast-day, to any minstrel wishing to enter the palace. At length the woman is sought out, captured, and put in prison; asked why she had acted thus, she boldly confessed that she had been instructed to do this by a certain knight, and had been hired for money. The knight is taken and is brought before the King, summoned concerning the one sent before. Who boldly called for that same letter; of which the tenor was: that the lord king had less regard by way of gratuity for his knights who, in the time of his father, and with himself, had undergone various battles and dangers, and that others, who had not endured the burden and heat of the day with him, he amply enriched, beyond measure. Because of which the said knight won thanks and promotion from the king, and he freed the said woman from prison.1 Concerning this story, which is told in one of the St Albans chronicles, J. R. Maddicott suggests that it ‘is too circumstantial in its details to be false …’. Antonia Gransden seems also to accept it as true and comments that ‘The purpose of the letter was to remind the king of his duty to his nobles.’ 2 1 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11137-9 - Writing to the King: Nation, Kingship, and Literature in England, 1250-1350 David Matthews Excerpt More information 2 Writing to the king As a modern reader it is difficult, however, not to be sceptical of a chronicle story which seems so resonant of another genre, one we think of as entirely fictive. In Arthurian romance, the surprising irruption into court on a major feast day of a disrespectful challenger or a woman with a request to make is a staple. The fact that the day should be specified as Pentecost aligns this story with Sir Launfal, Ywain and Gawain and Malory’s Tale of Sir Gareth. There is even, in the phrase ‘the woman is sought out’ [‘mulier quaeritur’], an embryonic romance quest and at the end of the story, a knight previously alienated from the courtly world is reintegrated into the Arthurian court. Did the chronicler let some of his own less authorised reading seep into his account of history, or is it that romance influenced the actors in the story themselves? Either way, the romance influence does not penetrate very far, as the hint at the genre is quickly dispelled by a dramatic reversal of roles. In Arthurian romance, the challenges that come from outside are mysterious and otherworldly; knights who go out in fulfilment of the quests such challenges invite engage in rambling, random travels, trusting to their chivalry in negotiating the unknown. But in this story, knightly quest is swift and efficient, as women who horse about in court soon learn. The sequence of passive verbs which follows the phrase ‘mulier quaeritur’ produces a narrative economy of ruthless efficiency rather than the dilation of the quest. It is best represented in the Latin: ‘mulier quaer- itur, capitur, et carceri mancipatur … Miles capitur, coram Rege deduci- tur, super præmissis convenitur’. In Arthurian romance, the workings of the otherworld outside Camelot are mysterious to us. Here, the relations between centre and margins are reversed. We do not know how Edward’s agents achieve their result, or even who they are, while we do learn all about the mechanism of the original challenge. The story ultimately dispels romance in favour of a narrative about the effective assertion of monarchical power. Coming from a chronicle that is characteristically pro-baronial, this seems a very comforting story from the point of view of Edward II. The disrespect shown to his court is swiftly dealt with and the king emerges as a paragon of Arthurian tolerance when the Knight of the Letter, as we might call him, is treated judiciously. More closely examined, the text of the letter continues to unravel in Edward’s favour. We are told that the tenor of the knight’s letter is: ‘that the lord king had less regard by way of gratuity for his knights who, in the time of his father, and with himself, had undergone various bat- tles and dangers, and that others, who had not endured the burden and heat of the day with him, he amply enriched, beyond measure’ [‘quod © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11137-9 - Writing to the King: Nation, Kingship, and Literature in England, 1250-1350 David Matthews Excerpt More information Introduction 3 Dominus Rex milites suos, qui tempore patris sui et secum diversis bellis et periculis fecerant, minus curialiter respexit, et alios qui nec pondus diei vel æstus secum portarant, nimis abunde ditavit’]. Edward’s favouring of outsiders and newcomers was a common complaint of the time. Most notoriously, his cultivation of the Gascon knight Piers Gaveston had led to brutal retribution by the barons five years earlier. Edward reacted to Gaveston’s death by finding new favourites, most prominently, the father and son both named Hugh Despenser. It was probably these two who were indicated by the letter, and perhaps other, lesser barons among the court party in 1317, such as Hugh Audley, Roger Amory, and William Montagu – all of whom could be accused of being arrivistes ‘who had not endured the burden and heat of the day’ [‘nec pondus diei vel aestus’]. It is this phrase which is most interesting in the complaint. It is almost a direct quotation from Christ’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard in the Gospel of Matthew. A householder hires men in the morning to work in his vineyard, promising them pay of a denarius; at later hours of the day he hires other workers but in the evening pays all who have worked in the vineyard the same amount. The first hired complain that those who came later have been paid the same as those who endured ‘pondus diei et aestus’ (Matthew 20.12). The good householder reproves them, saying that he will pay the last as the first. Jesus concludes, ‘sic erunt novissimi primi et primi novissimi’ (20.16). The lesson of this text – that the last (strictly speaking, the newest, most recently arrived) shall be first and the first, last – runs entirely against what the Knight of the Letter is trying to achieve. His complaint is made on behalf of those who consider themselves the ‘primi’ against the ‘novis- simi’. Faced with this challenge, Edward II could have responded by posi- tioning himself as the householder (and so by extension as Christ): he could have said that his preference for the newcomers was Christ-like even-handedness; that it was not for lesser men to question him, and that, finally, ‘sic erunt novissimi primi et primi novissimi’. Instead, the knight is honoured for his timely reminder of the master-code of chivalry. The story’s intertexts, sacred and profane, all direct attention to the great tol- erance of Edward II. Depicting an extravagant form of transmission, the story draws attention to the role of writing in political complaint and to the need to bring such writing to the attention of the king. From Magna Carta to the Provisions of Oxford and the 1311 Ordinances, from the Mise of Amiens to the Mise of Lewes – both royal and baronial parties sought to consolidate their gains by the use of documents. Documents ‘were quite © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11137-9 - Writing to the King: Nation, Kingship, and Literature in England, 1250-1350 David Matthews Excerpt More information 4 Writing to the king literally speech acts that were answered sometimes by other documents, sometimes by physical force’, writes Tim William Machan in reference to the 1260s, ‘so that the weapons of the Barons’ War, unlike those of the Norman Conquest, were indeed as much words as pickaxes and swords’.3 Michael Clanchy has charted the process by which documents assumed an importance in thirteenth-century England which they did not have in the eleventh. In the reign of Henry II an increasing formalisation of the law entailed a shift from custom to the use of writs and in conse- quence the proliferation of documents. Clanchy notes an incident during the reign in which the justiciar mocks a knight for mentioning his seal.