HIC INCIPIT QUIDA’ RISMUS F’TUS DE P’DIC’ONE VASCON’ ET DE RIUSD’ CONQUESTU P’ R’ E’ FILIU’ REG’ H’.
|
Satis novit seculum Qualiter fit speculum Quia p’ p’fidiam Jam p’dit Vasconiam Rex fidem adhibuit Egit quod non debuit Seriem composuit Que Regi transposuit Per verba credencie Q’d magnates Francie Qdq; Regi Anglie Natam Regis Gallie Ad hec dux Burgundie Ait q’d in flumine Perierunt pridie Additis hastucie Ut ergo concordia Et omnis discordia Celsitudo regia Q’d sibi vasconia Proponit brevissime De terra vasconie Ius v’r’m certissime Si q’d petit p’pere Si seisinam habeat Tunc mandare placeat Gens anglor’ faciat Pars utraq; deleat Ait vir considera Nova sunt non vetera Pulcram inter cetera Prout dicit littera Hoc audito Langetum Ad regem consilium Et Lacy p’ sompnium Quin eiusdem devium Puellam rex diligens Penitus consensiens Fieri precipiens Pro dolor nam nesciens Demum in Vasconia Litteras ab Anglia Ac sub manu Gallia Anglis inutilia Gallici Vasconiam Et in manum Anglicam Neq; regis filiam Regi dare quoniam Exp’tem Vasconie Magni pares Francie Regem n’r’m Anglie Nam causam malicie Audiens p’fidiam Quam habet p’ F’nciam Jurat p’ ecc’iam Quousq; Vasconiam Rex vocat Pontifices Et Anglorum Comites Quinq; Portus fomites Volant ut irundines Clerus et milicia Vovent cum leticia Parantur ad omnia Francie sunt noxia Rex Anglor’ nobilis Ferox est et stabilis Fortis et non debilis Senciet id flebilis |
De lingua Gallorum Patens traditorum Pessimam ip’orum Princeps Anglicorum Dictus Gallicorum Nam fraus miserorum Quorumdam verborum Cetus nunciorum Nuncii dixerunt Simul tractaverunt Dare voluerunt Heu q’d hic venerunt Quidam nunciorum Multi Northmannorum Per nautas Anglorum Causis Bayonorum Pacis jam addatur Prorsus repallatur Francie precatur Totalis reddatur Vos tunc reseisire Nec quid deperire Potestis hoc scire Placet exaudire Per sex septimanas Q’d transire lanas Et sic causas vanas Res collando sanas Rex que petierunt Hec que tibi ferunt Tibi promiserunt Quam Galli miserunt Statim prosilivit Dedit sicut scivit Certe non dormivit Seisine nutrivit Vinculis amorum Dictis consultorum Litteras servorum Erat futurorum J. Lacy p’rexit Secumq; devexit Vascones contexit Heu’ q’d tot aspexit Sibi subjugarunt Dare recusarunt In spousam pararunt Ip’m subsannarunt Foris judicarunt Et exheredarunt Parum hunc amarunt Sibi demonstrarunt Rex exheredatus Satis est iratus Non erit letatus Fuerit lucratus Ad parliamentum Flores sapientum Barones p’ centum In mari p’ ventum Gentis Anglicane Q’d seroq; mane Que genti p’phane Nam sup’bit vane Vocatus Edwardus Tanq’m leopardus Velox et non tardus[135] Pomposus Picardus. |
[P. 37]. Anno 24 Edward I, 1296. “Also in this yere Sr. Thomas Turbevyle for treson was drawen and hanged.”
Of the conduct which caused Sir Thomas Turbeville’s execution, the following fragment of a curious contemporary poem in the Cottonian MS. Caligula A. xviij, presents perhaps the most accurate information which is extant. It immediately precedes, and is written in the same hand as, the only contemporary copy of the Roll of Carlaverock which is known to exist, and hence it is highly probable that it was composed by the same person. Under any circumstances, however, it cannot fail to be deemed to possess sufficient interest to render it a valuable illustration to the passage in the text.
[P. 57]. “This same yere [anno 14th Edw. III. 1340] the kyng faught with the Frensshmen at Scluse, where there were sclayn of Frensshmen xxx ml; and the kyng toke and scomfyted at the sayd bataill of Scluse cccx schippes.” Of this passage, the following letter from king Edward the Third to Edward the Black Prince, giving an account of his victory over the French fleet at Sclyse, on Saturday the 24th of June 1340,—which, with the permission of Henry Woodthorpe, Esq., the Town Clerk, has also been extracted from the City Archives, letter F. fol. 39,—is an interesting illustration. This document, which has escaped the attention of Historians, presents an authentic detail of that memorable event; and it is evident from it that Robert de Avesbury, the contemporary writer upon whom the greatest reliance has hitherto been placed, has fallen into some errors in his narrative of the transaction. He informs us that on the day after the battle a rumour of it reached London, but that it was discredited until the ensuing Wednesday, namely the 28th of June, when the Prince of Wales received a letter from the king informing him of his success, of which letter that writer asserts that the annexed was a copy:
“Edwardus Dei Gracia Rex Angliæ et Franciæ et Dominus Hiberniæ, &c. Effusam circa nos hiis diebus propiciacionis divinæ clemenciam, ad vestri contemplacionem et læticiam, vobis ducimus intimandam. Scitis autem, immo vos et alios[136] fideles nostri quadam participacione sensitis, quantis fuimus et sumus guerrarum lacessiti turbinibus, et velut in mari magno procellosis fluctibus agitati. Sed licet sint mirabiles elaciones maris, mirabilior tamen in altis Dominus, qui procellam convertens in auram, jam inter tot adversa clementissime nos respexit. Nam cum pridem ordinassemus passagium nostrum necessarium versus partes Flandriæ, Dominus Philippus de Valesio, persecutor noster infestissimus, hoc prævidens, classem maximam navium armatarum quam in expugnacionem nostram nostrorumque fidelium misit, ut vel sic nos caperet, vel nostrum transitum impediret. qui transitus si, quod absit, fuisset impeditus, ardua negocia, quæ prosequimur, fuissent penitus in ruina: quinimmo nos et nostri fuissemus verisimiliter confusionis[137] magnæ subjecti. Sed Deus misericordiarum, videns nos in tantis periculis constitutos, graciosius et cicius, quam humana racio judicare poterat, misit nobis magnum navale subsidium, et insperatum numerum armatorum, ac semper ventum prosperum juxta votum, et sic, sub spe cœlestis auxilii, et justiciæ nostræ fiducia, dictum portum navigio venientes, invenimus dictam classem et hostes nostros ibidem paratissimos ad prælium in multitudine copiosa; quibus, in festo Nativitatis Sancti Johannis Baptistæ proximo præterito, ipse spes nostra Christus deus per conflictum fortem et validum nos prævalere concessit, facta strage non modica dictorum hostium, capta eciam quodammodo tota dicta classe, cum læsione gentis nostræ modica respective, sicque tucior de cetero patebit transitus nostris fidelibus supra mare, et alia bona plurima sunt ex hoc nobis et nostris fidelibus verisimiliter proventura, de quo spes pulcherima jam arridet. Nos autem, tantam cœlestem graciam devotissime contemplantes, ipsi Salvatori nostro laudes et gracias humiliter exsolvimus, deprecantes, ut, qui jam et semper in oportunitatibus copiosis graciis[138] nos prævenit continuatis, nos auxiliis prosequatur, et nobis regere temporaliter sic concedat in terris, ut in eo lætemur æternaliter in excelsis. Dileccionem vestram attente rogamus et per Dei misericordiam obsecramus, quatinus soli Deo vivo, qui tantum signum nobiscum fecit in bonum, in devotæ laudis præconium assurgentes, nos, jam in remotis agentes, et nedum jura nostra recuperare, sed sanctam ecclesiam catholicam attollere, et in justicia populum regere cupientes, sibi devotis oracionum instanciis recomendare curetis, facientes pro nobis missas, et alia piæ placacionis officia misericorditer exerceri, et ad hoc clerum et populum vestræ diocesis salutaribus monitis inducatis, ut Deus ipse, miseratus nobis, progressum felicem et exitum annuat graciosum, detque servo suo cor docile, ut recte judicare possimus et regere et sic facere quod præcipit, ut mereamur assequi quod promittit. Teste Edwardo duce Cornubiæ et Comite Cestriæ filio nostro carissimo Custode Angliæ apud Waltham Sanctæ Crucis xxviiivo. die Junii, anno Regni nostri Angliæ xiiiito. Regni vero Franciæ primo.”
It is however manifest from that document having been tested by the Prince of Wales, that it was rather a proclamation issued in consequence of the dispatch from the king to the prince, than the dispatch itself, of which the letter now for the first time printed may be deemed the only copy which is extant. Nor must it be forgotten that the date affixed to the article given by Avesbury tends to excite a suspicion of its authenticity; for it is tested by the prince at Waltham Holy Cross upon the precise day, the 28th of June, on which the king’s letter was written, and which could not therefore possibly have arrived on the day in question at Waltham. It is somewhat singular that as the battle was concluded on the 25th of June, the king should not have written until the 28th; but this may perhaps be accounted for by those arrangements which his success would necessarily have required, and which may be supposed to have engaged the monarch’s whole attention for some days. The letter in Avesbury’s Annals gives no particulars of the battle, though that writer relates that the enemy were beaten; that more than thirty thousand of them were slain; that many leapt into the sea from fear and were drowned; and that their fleet consisted of two hundred large ships, on board of one of which four hundred dead bodies were found. The Royal dispatch, however, affords much more minute information, and corrects the statements both in Avesbury and in the preceding Chronicle. It asserts that the French fleet amounted to one hundred and eighty sail; that they were nobly defended the whole of a day and a night; that they were all captured in the engagement excepting twenty-four which took to flight, and part of them were subsequently taken at sea; that the number of the men at arms and other armed persons amounted to thirty-five thousand, of whom five thousand escaped; that the English ships captured by the French at Middleburgh were then retaken; and that among the prizes were three or four as large as ’the Christopher,’ which we may infer was then the largest ship of the English navy.
It is unquestionable from what has been said, that this document supplies some important facts in the history of the times, whilst its entry among the Records of the City of London tends to establish that the Mayor of the city was accustomed at that early period to receive an official account of every public transaction, and of which another example will be found in a subsequent page.
The events which led to the battle of the Swyne, or as it is more generally termed of the Scluse, are too familiar to require repetition.
“Nota de Bello Aquatico:—
l’ra d’ni e’ dirett’
filio suo duci cornub’
de bello sup’ mare
p’cusso die nativit’
s’c’i joh’is bapt’
“Tresch’ fitz no’ pensoms bien q’ vo’ estes desirons assavoir bones novelles de no’ et coment il no’ est avenuz puys n’re aler Denglet’re si vo’ fesom savoir q’ le Joedi’[139] ap’s ceo q’ no’ dep’times du Port Dorewełł,[140] no’ siglames tut le iou ret la nuyt suaunte, et le vendredi[141] en tour hour de noune no’ venismes s’ la costere de fflaundres devant Blankebergh ou no’ avioms la vewe de la fflote de nos enemys qi estoyent tut amassez ensemble en port del Swyne et p’ ceo q’ la Tyde nestoit mis adonges p’ assembler a eux no’ yherbergeasmes tut cel noet le samady le iour de seint Johan[142] bien ap’s houre de noune a la Tyde nous en noun de Dieu et en espoire de n’re droite querele entrames en dit port s’ nos ditz enemys qi avoyent assemble lours niefs en moult fort array et lesqu’x fesoient ml’t noble defens tut cel iour et la noet ap’s, mes dieu p’ sa puissaunce et miracle no’ ottroia la victorie de mesmes noƷ enemys de qai no’ m’cioms si devoutement come no’ poems. Et si vo’ fesoms savoir q’ le nombre des niefs galeyes et g’nt barges de nos enemys amounta a ixxx et ditz, lessqueles estoient toutz pris sauve xxiiij. en tut lesqueles senfuirent et les uns sont puye pris s’ mier et le nombre des gentz darmes et autres gentz armez amounta a xxxv Miłł de quele nombre p’ esme cink’ Ml sont eschapees, et la remenaunt ensi come no’ est donc a entendre p’ ascuns gentz q’ sont pris en vie, si gissent les corps mortz et tut pleyn de lieux sr la costere de fflaundres. Dautre p’t totes nos niefs, cest assavoir Cristofre et les autres qi estoient p’dues a Middelburgh, sont ore regaignez, et il yount gaignez en ceste navie trois ou quatre auxi graundes come la Cristofre: les fflemengs estoient de bone volente davoir venuz a no’ ala bataille du commencement tanqe ala fin issint dieu n’re seignr ad assez de grace monstre de qei’ no’ et toutz nos amys sumes tut ditz tenutz de lui rendre grace et m’ciz. N’re entent est a demorer en pees en le ewe taunt qe no’ eoms pris c’teyn point ove no’ alliez et autres nos amys de fflandres de ceo q’ soit affaire. Trescher fitz dieu soit gardeyn de vo’. Don’ souz n’re secree seal en n’re nief Cogg[143] Thom’, le Mescredy en la veille seint Piere et seint Paoul.[144]
14o R. Edw. 3ii.”
[P. 63]. “And in this yere, that is to seye the yere of oure lord a ml ccclvjto, the xix day of Septembre, kyng John of Fraunce was taken at the bataill of Peyters be the doughty prynce Edward, the firste sone of kyng Edward.” &c.
It would be difficult to name a more interesting document connected with English History than that by which, through the courtesy of Henry Woodthorpe, Esq., Town Clerk of the City of London, the passage in the text will be illustrated; namely, a copy of the letter from Edward the Black Prince to the Mayor, Aldermen and Comonalty of London, acquainting them with the achievement of the battle of Poictiers. This important record, which has never before been printed, occurs among the archives of the city, in a contemporary MS. entitled Letter G. fol. 53b. and was, there can be little doubt, entered into that volume soon after the receipt of the original.
The greater part of the Prince’s letter is occupied by the detail of the proceedings of the army for some days previous to the battle, and in describing the efforts of the Cardinal Peregort to produce a peace or truce between the kings of France and England; whilst the conflict itself is mentioned in a few words. Independently of the particulars of the English forces and their rencontres with the enemy which this letter so minutely relates, its most important statement is that of the precise day when the battle took place, for historians have differed materially upon the point. The Prince, however, expressly says that it occurred on the eve of the feast of St. Matthew, i.e. the 20th of September. His letter was dated at Bordeaux on the 22nd of the following month, and was sent to the Mayor of London by the Prince’s chamberlain Sir Neel Loring; and the manner in which he refers the Mayor and Citizens to that distinguished knight for further information, cannot fail to be noticed, from its great similarity to the conclusion of a modern military dispatch. Another feature of this and other documents of the same nature in early periods, is the great simplicity and modesty with which they are written. An expression of gratitude to God alone interrupts the unadorned narrative; and the defeat of an army infinitely superior in numbers, and the capture of one of the most powerful sovereigns of the times together with his eldest son, are thus laconically related: “The battle took place on the eve of St. Matthew; and, praise be to God, the enemy were discomfited, and the king and his son were taken, and great numbers of other people taken and slain.” To present as many contemporary documents as could be collected relative to this memorable event, two other letters are introduced, as well as the affidavit of an individual who claimed to have been the person to whom king John of France surrendered himself.
One of the letters alluded to, which is printed in the Archæologia, vol. i. p. 213, is also from the Black Prince, to Reginald Bryan bishop of Worcester, dated at Bordeaux on the 20th of November, briefly informing him of his success, which he attributes in a great measure to the efficacy of that prelate’s prayers.
The other letter is from Robert Prite to some English nobleman, dated on the 8th of December 1356, whose clerk, or probably priest, he styles himself, and is taken from the original on vellum in the Cottonian MS. Caligula D. III. f. 33. After mentioning the battle of Poictiers, the particulars of which he says he will learn from a knight whom the duke of Lancaster had sent into England to the king, the writer acquaints him with some other news of the time, as well as with what had occurred in some of his towns; and entreats him to come over as soon as possible. This letter, which is now for the first time printed, though not so important as the others, is nevertheless of interest, as connected with the battle of Poictiers, and with other public and private transactions of the period.
The third document on the subject is the solemn declaration of Bernard du Troy, a Gascon gentleman, made on his death-bed the 1st of July 1361, that he was the person who took the king of France prisoner at the battle of Poictiers; which point it is evident from this instrument, as well as from historians, had been much disputed. This very curious article, which also occurs in the Cottonian MS. just mentioned, is highly interesting; for it not only shows who were the claimants to the honour of having captured the king, but the ardour with which that claim was supported. It is however doubtful whether the love of fame or pecuniary interest prompted this declaration at so awful a moment; but his motive, like those of most other human actions, was probably of a mixed nature; for whatever might be the renown which was attached to the exploit, the ransom to which the true claimant would be entitled must have been an object of great consideration to him or to his heirs. Du Troy carefully provides, that those who would support his pretensions with their swords should partake of the benefits which might arise from their valour; and this circumstance presents a curious picture of the manners of the age. Sir Denys de Morbeque of whom he speaks, is thus noticed by Froissart. “There was much pressing at this time through eagerness of taking the king: and those that were nearest to him, and knew him, cried out ‘Surrender yourself, surrender yourself, or you are a dead man.’ In that part of the field was a young knight from St. Omer, who was engaged by a salary in the service of the king of England: his name was Denis de Morbeque, who for five years had attached himself to the English, on account of having been banished in his younger days from France for a murder committed in an affray at St. Omer. It fortunately happened for this knight, that he was at the time near to the king of France when he was so much pulled about. He by dint of force, for he was very strong and robust, pushed through the crowd and said to the king in good French, ‘Sire, sire, surrender yourself.’ The king, who found himself very disagreeably situated, turning to him, asked ‘To whom shall I surrender myself; to whom? Where is my cousin the Prince of Wales? if I could see him I would speak to him.’ ‘Sire,’ replied Sir Denys, ‘he is not here; but surrender yourself to me, and I will lead you to him.’ ‘Who are you?’ said the king. ‘Sire, I am Denys de Morbeque, a knight from Artois, but I serve the king of England because I cannot belong to France, having forfeited all I possessed there.’ The king then gave him his right-hand glove, and said ‘I surrender myself to you.’ There was much crowding and pushing about, for every one was eager to cry out ‘I have taken him.’”
Most of the witnesses to Du Troy’s declaration were celebrated peers and knights both of England and France.