False knights and true men: contesting chivalric masculinity in English treason trials, 1388–1415
2014; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 40; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/03044181.2014.954139
ISSN1873-1279
Autores Tópico(s)Historical Economic and Social Studies
ResumoAbstractThe treatment of high-status traitors in later medieval England intrigues historians, who have sought explanations for increasingly brutal penalties and analysed degrading punishments that undid the traitor's knighthood. Recent scholarship incorporates gender into this analysis, suggesting rituals of degradation feminised the traitor and thereby preserved the coherence and integrity of elite masculine identity. This article uses the framework of homosociality to expand the analysis of gender in politically motivated cases of treason where traitors were characterised as ‘false’ knights. In these cases, treason was conceived of as the corruption of knightly manhood because the potential for treason was intrinsic to chivalric values of love and loyalty through which knightly masculinity was performed. The knight and the traitor were mutually constitutive rather than oppositional gendered identities, which meant the traitor's punishment could destabilise rather than reinforce elite masculinity as embodied in the knight.Keywords: treasonexecutionsmasculinityknighthoodMerciless ParliamentRichard II AcknowledgementsA version of this paper was presented at the International Medieval Congress, Leeds, 2012, and I thank the Australian and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies (ANZAMEMS) for assistance with travel funding on that occasion. I have benefited greatly from the comments of Andrew Brown, Mark Ormrod and Michelle Ann Smith on earlier drafts of this paper.Notes1 The following abbreviations are used in this article: Continuatio Eulogii: F.S. Haydon, ed., Eulogium (historiarum sive temporis), vol. 3, Chronicon ab orbe condito usque ad annum domini M.CCC.LXVI, a monacho quodam Malmesburiensi exaratum. Rolls Series 9 (London: Longman, 1863); English Chronicle: C. William Marx, ed., An English Chronicle, 1377–1461: Edited from Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales MS 21068 and Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Lyell 34. Medieval Chronicles 3 (Rochester: Boydell Press, 2003); Historia: Andrew Galloway, trans., ‘Appendix. History or Narration Concerning the Manner and Form of the Miraculous Parliament at Westminster in the Year 1386, the Tenth Year of the Reign of King Richard the Second after the Conquest, Declared by Thomas Favent’, in The Letter of the Law: Legal Practice and Literary Production in Medieval England, eds. Emily Steiner and Candace Barrington (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), 231–52; Knighton: Henry Knighton, Knighton's Chronicle 1337–1396, ed. and trans. G.H. Martin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Morley v. Montague: M.H. Keen and M. Warner, eds., ‘A True Copy of the Roll of Proceeding in an Appeale of Treason Before the Conestable and Marshall Between Thomas Lord Morley, Appellant, and John De Montague, Earle of Salisbury, Defendant, Anno Primi Henrici Quarti’, in Chronology, Conquest and Conflict in Medieval England. Camden Miscellany XXXIV. Camden 5th series, 10 (London: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Historical Society, 1997), 141–95; PROME: C. Given-Wilson, ed., The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, 1275–1504. 16 vols. (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2005); SAC I: The St Albans Chronicle: the Chronica maiora of Thomas Walsingham, vol. 1, 1376–1394, eds. John Taylor, Wendy R. Childs and Leslie Watkiss (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); SAC II: The St Albans Chronicle: the Chronica maiora of Thomas Walsingham, vol. 2, 1394–1422, eds. John Taylor, Wendy R. Childs and Leslie Watkiss (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); WC: L.C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey, eds., The Westminster Chronicle, 1381–1394 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).J.G. Bellamy, The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); M.H. Keen, ‘Treason Trials Under the Law of Arms’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 12 (1962): 85–103; John Gillingham, ‘Killing and Mutilating Political Enemies in the British Isles from the Late Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Century: a Comparative Study’, in Britain and Ireland, 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change, ed. Brendan Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 114–34; James Bothwell, Falling from Grace: Reversal of Fortune and the English Nobility 1075–1455 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008), 55–86.2 On punishment generally, Esther Cohen, ‘Symbols of Culpability and the Universal Language of Justice: the Ritual of Public Executions in Late Medieval Europe’, History of European Ideas 11 (1989): 407–16. On punishment for treason in England, Danielle Westerhof, ‘Deconstructing Identities on the Scaffold: the Execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger, 1326’, Journal of Medieval History 33 (2007): 87–106; Danielle Westerhof, Death and the Noble Body in Medieval England (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2008), Chapters 5 and 6; Fionn Pilbrow, ‘The Knights of the Bath: Dubbing to Knighthood in Lancastrian and Yorkist England’, in Heraldry, Pageantry and Social Display in Medieval England, eds. Peter Coss and Maurice Keen (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 195–6, 215–16; Katherine Royer, ‘The Body in Parts: Reading the Execution Ritual in Late Medieval England’, Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 29 (2003): 319–39.3 Keen (‘Treason Trials’, 88–91) makes the point that chronicle accounts in particular may not always have been completely accurate, but they provide important insight into how contemporaries understood the process of trial and punishment to work.4 Keen ‘Treason Trials’; Bothwell, Falling from Grace, 76–8; Westerhof, Death and the Noble Body, 121–3.5 On the knighting ritual, Hugh E.L. Collins, The Order of the Garter, 1348–1461: Chivalry and Politics in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 201–3; Pilbrow, ‘Knights of the Bath’, 202–6. Standard histories of chivalry discuss the traitor as the knight's opposite. See for example, Maurice Keen, Chivalry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984); Richard W. Barber, The Knight and Chivalry (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1995); Richard W. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).6 Bothwell, Falling from Grace, 64–6, notes that in England, hanging, drawing and quartering marked the offender as ignoble, while simple beheading was a privilege of nobility.7 See n. 2. Also useful is Claire Sponsler's examination of Jean Froissart's account of the execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger: C. Sponsler, ‘The King's Boyfriend: Froissart's Political Theater of 1326’, in Queering the Middle Ages, eds. Glenn Burger and Steven F. Kruger (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), 143–67. However, Sponsler focuses on the structure of Froissart's narrative rather than providing a broader historical analysis of treason. On alternatives to execution in an earlier period, Klaus Van Eickels, ‘Gendered Violence: Castration and Blinding as Punishment for Treason in Normandy and Anglo-Norman England’, Gender and History 16 (2004): 588–602.8 Westerhof, ‘Deconstructing Identities’, 103.9 A growing body of scholarship uses the concept of homosociality to examine medieval masculinities. Particularly useful for the Anglo-French context are Ruth Mazo Karras, From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003); Derek G. Neal, The Masculine Self in Late Medieval England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008); Katherine J. Lewis, Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England (New York: Routledge, 2013); Kim M. Phillips, ‘Masculinities and the Medieval English Sumptuary Laws’, Gender and History 19 (2007): 22–42; M.J. Ailes, ‘The Medieval Male Couple and the Language of Homosociality’, in Masculinity in Medieval Europe, ed. D.M. Hadley (London: Longman, 1999), 214–37.10 Phillips, ‘Masculinities’, 24–6.11 R.W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt, ‘Hegemonic Masculinity. Rethinking the Concept’, Gender and Society 19 (2005): 832.12 Neal, Masculine Self, 38–44, quote at 42.13 Neal, Masculine Self, 44.14 Christopher Fletcher, Richard II: Manhood, Youth, and Politics, 1377–99 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 26–50. Using a range of Middle English texts, Fletcher demonstrates (35–6, 50) the term ‘manly’ and its cognates were used in reference to knightly performance in particular, so that ‘manly’ and ‘manhood’ denoted not just any male in contrast to women and children, but adult men of high social status.15 In these cases, the alleged crimes generally included accroaching or usurping the king's power, a more ambiguous offence than other types of treason defined in statute such as armed rebellion or false coining. On accroaching: Bellamy, Law of Treason, 11–12.16 On this point, David Crouch, The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France: 900–1300 (Harlow: Longman, 2005), 56–89; Maurice Keen, Chivalry, 28–33; M.H. Keen, ‘Some Late Medieval Ideas About Nobility’, in idem, Nobles, Knights, and Men-at-Arms in the Middle Ages (London: Hambledon Press, 1996), 187–208; Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence, 111–31, 189–91.17 On this approach to gender, see Neal, Masculine Self, 124–7.18 See n.16.19 Keen, Chivalry, 149–51.20 For a detailed survey of this debate across a range of primary sources, see Westerhof, Death and the Noble Body, 33–56. Cf. Keen, Chivalry, 152–60.21 This was a common theme in chivalric literature: Stephanie Trigg, Shame and Honor: a Vulgar History of the Order of the Garter (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 127–35.22 Karras, Boys to Men, 21.23 Lynn Staley, Languages of Power in the Age of Richard II (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), 51–7. Cf. Rosemary Horrox, ‘Service’, in Fifteenth-Century Attitudes: Perceptions of Society in Late Medieval England, ed. Rosemary Horrox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 61–78.24 Chris Given-Wilson, The Royal Household and the King's Affinity: Service, Politics, and Finance in England, 1360–1413 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 1–74; W.M. Ormrod, Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 19–21; M.A. Hicks, English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century (London: Routledge, 2002), 43–52, 101–4. David Starkey provides a succinct overview of the problematic ‘politics of intimacy’ in relation to the chamber: David Starkey, ‘Introduction: Court History in Perspective’, in The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses To the Civil War, eds. David Starkey and others (London: Longman, 1987), 1–24 (13).25 Ailes, ‘Medieval Male Couple’; Mathew Kuefler, ‘Male Friendship and the Suspicion of Sodomy in Twelfth-Century France’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, eds. Sharon A. Farmer and Carol Braun Pasternack (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 145–81.26 M.H. Keen, ‘Brotherhood-in-Arms’, in idem, Nobles, Knights, and Men-at-Arms, 47. For this practice in fourteenth-century England, Richard Firth Green, ‘Palamon's Appeal of Treason in the “Knight's Tale”’, in Letter of the Law, eds. Steiner and Barrington, 106–7.27 Collins, Order of the Garter, 24. On homosocial love as a core value of the Garter, Trigg, Shame and Honor, 108–16.28 Joel T. Rosenthal, ‘The King's “Wicked Advisers” and Medieval Baronial Rebellions’, Political Science Quarterly 82 (1967): 595–618. Klaus Oschema, ‘The Cruel End of the Favourite. Clandestine Death and Public Retaliation at Late Medieval Courts in England and France’, in Death at Court, eds. Karl-Heinz Spiess and Immo Warntjes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 171–95, analyses chronicle tropes about unworthy favourites and their illicit inversion of social and political order, although he does not explicitly address gender.29 Hicks, English Political Culture, 56–7; Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence, 194–6; Pamela Nightingale, ‘Knights and Merchants: Trade, Politics and the Gentry in Late Medieval England’, Past and Present 169 (2000): 36–62. Hicks (117) notes the particular disdain amongst the landed nobility for ‘trade’.30 Anthony Goodman, The Loyal Conspiracy: the Lords Appellant under Richard II (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1971); Nigel Saul, Richard II (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), Chapters 8 and 9.31 ‘ … qe entierement eux lui firent de tout a eux doner soun amour et ferme foi et credence, et haier ses loiaux seignours et lieges’: C. Given-Wilson, ed., ‘Appeal of Treason’ in ‘Richard II: Parliament of 1388, Text and Translation’, in PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. C. Given-Wilson, 83–98, article 1.32 ‘ … en oustauntz le roi de soun devoir countre soun serement et les couers des grauntz seignours et de poeple de lour seignour liege, encompassaunt de esloigner le couer nostre seignour le roi des peres de la terre’: PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. Given-Wilson, 85, article 4.33 ‘ … magis sibi placit gubernari per falsissimos proditores quam per suos nobiles et dominos regni sui fidelissimos amatores’: WC, 218–19.34 Recent studies differ on Favent's motivations and intended audience, but agree his Historia is a valuable eyewitness account. Cf. Clementine Oliver, Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-Century England (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2010); Gwilym Dodd, ‘Was Thomas Favent a Political Pamphleteer? Faction and Politics in Later Fourteenth-Century London’, Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011): 397–418. I have used Andrew Galloway's translation: Historia, 231–52.35 Historia, 233, 237.36 Saul, Richard II, 171–5.37 Historia, 239–40.38 Neal, Masculine Self, 13–55, analyses this conception of ‘false’ manhood in legal cases of slander, deception and accusations of theft.39 Saul, Richard II, 157–64.40 ‘Succrevit igitur indies regi odium contra suos proceres naturales et fideles’: SAC I, 806–7.41 Knighton, 392–3.42 For example, a few pages later, the favourites are described as proditores and traditores: Knighton, 404.43 On the interchangeability of seditio and seduccio, M. Hanrahan, ‘Seduction and Betrayal: Treason in the “Prologue” to the “Legend of Good Women”’, Chaucer Review 30 (1996): 236; 240, n. 31.44 M. Hanrahan, ‘Speaking of Sodomy: Gower's Advice to Princes in the “Confessio Amantis”’, Exemplaria 14 (2002): 430.45 William E. Burgwinkle, Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in Medieval Literature: France and England, 1050–1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 48–68; Joan Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 218–25; K. Lochrie, ‘Presumptive Sodomy and Its Exclusions’, Textual Practice 13 (1999): 295–310; Ruth Mazo Karras, Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others (New York: Routledge, 2005), 23–5.46 Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘The Lechery That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Sodomy and the Vices in Medieval England’, in In the Garden of Evil: the Vices and Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard Newhauser (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005), 193–205; Mark D. Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 95ff.47 Westerhof, ‘Deconstructing Identities’, 94.48 This interpretation of sodomy has been applied to the relationship between Edward II and his favourite, Piers Gaveston: Richard E. Zeikowitz, Homoeroticism and Chivalry: Discourses of Male Same-Sex Desire in the Fourteenth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 5–6; W.M. Ormrod, ‘The Sexualities of Edward II’, in The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives, eds. Gwilym Dodd and Anthony Musson (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2006), 22–47. Cf. Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and Sodomy’, in The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, ed. Mathew Kuefler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 273–86.49 I use the transcription in G.A. Holmes, ‘Judgement on the Younger Despenser, 1326’, English Historical Review 70 (1955): 261–7. Translations are my own. Cf. J. Taylor, ‘The Judgement of Hugh Despenser, the Younger’, Mediaevalia et Humanistica 12 (1958): 70–7.50 ‘Et pur ceo que vous fustes tot temps desloyaut et procurant descord entre notre seignour le roi et notre treshonurable dame la roigne et entre les autres gentz du roialme si enserrez vous debouwelle, et puys ils serront ars’: Holmes, ‘Judgement’, 266–7.51 Sponsler, ‘King's Boyfriend’, offers the fullest analysis. Froissart's account is also used by Westerhof, ‘Deconstructing Identities’, and Royer, ‘Body in Parts’.52 ‘ … et par tant qu'il estoit faux de coer et traytres et que par son traytre consseil et enort li rois avoit honnit son royaumme et mis a meschief et avoit fet decoller les plus hauls barons d'Engleterre par lesquelx li royaummes devoit estre soustenus et deffendus': Jean Froissart, ‘Book I, Amiens BM, MS 486’, ed. Godfried Croenen, in The Online Froissart, eds. Peter Ainsworth and Godfried Croenen, version 1.4 (November 2012), http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart (Accessed 9 August 2013), f. 5v. Translations are my own.53 ‘ … on li coppa tout premiers le vit et les couilles par tant qu'il estoit heritez et sedomittes, enssi que on disoit et meysmement dou roy meysme, et pour ce avoit decachiet, si comme on disoit, ly roys le roynne enssus de lui et par son en ort’: Jean Froissart, ‘Book I, Amiens BM, MS 486’, ed. Godfried Croenen, in The Online Froissart, f. 5v.54 On this point, I concur with Westerhof's critique of Sponsler: ‘Deconstructing Identities’, 89 n. 4.55 On this interpretation of discourses of sodomy, see for example W.M. Ormrod, ‘Sexualities of Edward II’; Gregory S. Hutcheson, ‘Desperately Seeking Sodom: Queerness in the Chronicles of Alvaro de Luna’, in Queer Iberia: Sexualities, Cultures, and Crossings from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, eds. Josiah Blackmore and Gregory S. Hutcheson (Durham: Duke University Press, 1999), 222–49.56 Sponsler, ‘King's Boyfriend’, 146, 150; Westerhof, ‘Deconstructing Identities’, 89, n. 4. Le Bel's version is: ‘On luy couppa tout premierement le vit et les coulles pour tant qu'il estoit herites et sodomites, ainsy comme on disoit, et mesmement du roy mesmes, et pour tant avoit le roy dechassé la royne par son enhortement’: Jehan Le Bel, Chronique de Jean Le Bel, eds. Jules Marie Édouard Viard and Eugène Déprez (Paris: Librairie Honore Champion, 1977), 28.57 Froissart's composition of key surviving witnesses such as the Amiens and Rome manuscripts dates to between 1390 and 1399: Peter F. Ainsworth, Jean Froissart and the Fabric of History: Truth, Myth, and Fiction in the Chroniques (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 219–25. Froissart was in London in 1395, when he presented a manuscript of his works to Richard II: Andrew Taylor, ‘“Moult bien parloit et lisoit le franchois”, or Did Richard II Read with a Picard Accent?’, in The Vulgar Tongue: Medieval and Postmedieval Vernacularity, eds. Fiona Somerset and Nicholas Watson (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 132–44.58 Saul, Richard II, 381–94.59 Robert de Vere was sentenced in absentia, as by the time of the Merciless Parliament he had fled England: Anthony Tuck, ‘Vere, Robert de, Ninth Earl of Oxford, Marquess of Dublin, and Duke of Ireland (1362–1392)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, September 2011), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28218 (Accessed 28 July 2014). Cf. Saul, Richard II, 192–3 and 242–3.60 The manuscript history of Walsingham's chronicles is complex, but Taylor and others date this passage to the mid-1390s: SAC I, liv. On the addition of the reference to ‘obscene familiarity’, W.M. Ormrod, ‘Knights of Venus’, Medium Aevum 73 (2004): 290, 296, dating it to c.1397. Stow suggests a date between 1397 and 1399, noting the passage is one of several changes that reflect Walsingham's increasingly negative view of the king: George B. Stow, ‘Richard II in Thomas Walsingham's Chronicles’, Speculum 59 (1984): 80–8.61 ‘ … tantum afficiebatur eidem, tantum coluit et amavit eundem, non sine nota, prout fertur, familiaritatis obscene’: SAC I, 798–9. My translation. For a valuable reading of normative interpretations of gender performance in this discourse, Michael Hanrahan, ‘Speaking of Sodomy’.62 On this usage of familiaris: Jochen Burgtorf, ‘“With My Life, His Joyes Began and Ended”: Piers Gaveston and King Edward II of England Revisited’, in Fourteenth Century England V, ed. Nigel Saul (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2008), 37.63 Robert Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: the Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 106.64 Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water, 110.65 M.H. Keen and M. Warner, ‘Introduction’, in ‘Morley v. Montagu’, 168. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water, 108–10, discusses the connection between late medieval chivalric culture and the increasing perception of trial by battle as an elite privilege.66 ‘ … myst son gaunte a gage pur meyntenir la dicte bille et les contenuz en ycelle’: ‘Morley v. Montague’, 173. All translations from this text are my own.67 ‘Morley v. Montague’, 173.68 Ramon Llull, The Book of the Order of Chyvalry, Translated by William Caxton, ed. Alfred T. Byles. Early English Text Society, Original Series 168 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Early English Text Society, 1971), 82–3.69 M.J. Russell, ‘Trial by Battle in the Court of Chivalry’, Journal of Legal History 29 (2008): 335–57. This was the most severe punishment possible, although the court could order lesser punishments.70 Pamela Nightingale, A Medieval Mercantile Community: the Grocers' Company and the Politics and Trade of London (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 228–315.71 Nightingale, Medieval Mercantile Community, 307.72 Fletcher, Richard II, 38–40, 97, 116–17.73 ‘Appeal of Treason’, in PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. Given-Wilson, 85–6, articles 2, 3, 6 and 7.74 ‘ … qu'il pourroient bien avoir l'ordre de chevalerie mais non mie le nom d'estre chevaliers, que tieux peut avoir l'ordre qui ne sont mie chevaliers': Geoffroi de Charny, The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi de Charny: Text, Context, and Translation, eds. Richard W. Kaeuper and Elspeth Kennedy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), 170–1.75 Saul, Richard II, 191–3.76 Historia, 245.77 Historia, 245; cf. WC, 309–11.78 Historia, 247. Cf. Knighton, 499–50. Being dragged on foot or on a hurdle inverted the deep cultural association between knighthood and riding on horseback. On this association, see Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence, 171–6.79 Historia, 247.80 ‘ … profra chivalrousement de defendre ovesqe son corps qil unques ne fuist traitour’: WC, 286–7.81 ‘ … destre treigne del Tour de Loundres a Tybourne et illeoqes penduz et coupe la teste’: WC, 290–3.82 ‘ … pur ceo qe le dit Simond servist le roy … et ensement a cause qil fuist chivaler del gartour … et agarda qe son teste serra coupe jouste le Tour’: WC, 292–3.83 ‘ … sicque de Westmonasterio ligatis post terga manibus gradiens via regia per medium civitatis London’ usque Tourhull’, ubi fuit decapitatus': WC, 330–3.84 Maïté Billoré, ‘Introduction’, in La trahison au moyen âge: de la monstruosité au crime politique, Ve–XVe siècle, eds. Maïté Billoré and Myriam Soria (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2009), 20–1; Trigg, Shame and Honor, 127–35.85 ‘Igitur rex viduatus a consortio suorum auricularium, et precipue ducis Hibernie, graviter tulit, nec diu potuit sustinere … et consanguineum regis et amicum specialissimum’: Knighton, 418–19. On amicus specialissimus, cf. Burgtorf, ‘With My Life’, 37–40.86 ‘ … unde rex in parliamento supra comites fecit eum sedere’: WC, 144–5. The title of duke had been created by Edward III to distinguish princes of the blood and members of the immediate royal family: Ormrod, Political Life, 70.87 ‘ … ount fait et counsaille, qe nostre dit seignour le roi, en quanqe en lui est, ad grante, assentu, et pleinement soi acorde qe Robert de Veer, duc d'Irland, soit fait roi del dit terre d'Irland’: ‘Appeal of Treason’, in PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. Given-Wilson, 87, article 11.88 Saul, Richard II, 187–8.89 ‘Et issint chevocha ove grant poiar et force de gentz d'armes … en acrochant a lui roial poiar, fist esplaier le baner du roi en sa compaignie’: ‘Appeal of Treason’, in PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. Given-Wilson, 98, article 39.90 Keen, ‘Treason Trials’, 96.91 Knighton, 419–21. Saul, Richard II, 187, notes De Vere had orders under the king's seal to raise troops in Cheshire.92 ‘At illi respondentes dixerunt … “set jussa regis gracia tuicionis persone ducis Hibernie noverint nos secum pariter equitasse …”’: WC, 222–3.93 ‘ … malveis et traiterouses exitations’, ‘firent le roi escrier au dit duc d'Irland’: ‘Appeal of Treason’, in PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. Given-Wilson, 97–8, article 38, my emphasis.94 ‘ … et qe le roi lui encontroit ovesqe tout soun poiar, et qe le roi ovesqe lui y metteroit en aventure soun corps roial’: ‘Appeal of Treason’, in PROME, vol. 7, Richard II 1385–1397, ed. Given-Wilson, 98, article 38. Richard was also given the active role when this incident was incorporated into the articles justifying his deposition: Chris Given-Wilson, ed., ‘Henry IV: Parliament of 1399, Text and Translation’, in PROME, vol. 8, Henry IV 1399–1413, ed. C. Given-Wilson, 15, item 20.95 ‘ … de ceo q'il fuist del counsaill de Thomas, duc de Goucestre, et chivacha parentre Richard, nadgairs roy d'Engleterre, et le dit duc come une espie, et conust le counseill d'ambideux parties, et puis come un faux chivaler discovera son counsaill et traiterousement disceyva le dit duc’: ‘Morley v. Montague’, 170.96 C. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II and the Higher Nobility’, in Richard II: the Art of Kingship, eds. Anthony Goodman and James L. Gillespie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 119–20.97 Saul, Richard II, 371–9, notes that while there is no evidence this plot was real, the grievances of the duke and other disaffected nobles against Richard II by this point were such that it was not unlikely.98 For Gloucester's confession and the circumstances of its production, see Matthew Giancarlo, ‘Murder, Lies, and Storytelling: the Manipulation of Justice(s) in the Parliaments of 1397 and 1399’, Speculum 77 (2002): 76–112.99 Anthony Tuck, ‘Henry IV and Chivalry’, in Henry IV: the Establishment of the Regime, 1399–1406, eds. Gwilym Dodd and Douglas Biggs (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2003), 55–72; Collins, Order of the Garter, 73–8; Pilbrow, ‘Knights of the Bath’, 209–10, 216–17.100 ‘ … milicie Christiane flos et gloria’: Adam Usk, The Chronicle of Adam Usk 1377–1421, ed. and trans. C. Given-Wilson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 170–1. Cf. J.M.W. Bean, ‘Henry IV and the Percies’, History 44 (1959): 212–27; M.J. Bennett, ‘Henry of Bolingbroke and the Revolution of 1399’, in Henry IV, eds. Dodd and Biggs, 9–33.101 Bean, ‘Henry IV and the Percies’, 221–7; J.L. Kirby, Henry IV of England (London: Constable, 1970), 52–8.102 Michael Hicks, ‘The Yorkshire Perjuries of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399 Revisited’, Northern History 46 (2009): 31–41.103 English Chronicle, 32–4. Cf. the virtually identical Latin account in the Continuatio Eulogii, 395–6. Recent scholarship suggests that, for the period 1399–1413, both chronicles relied on a mixture of Latin and English texts composed c.1400–20. On dating and manuscript history, English Chronicle, xi–xiv; G.B. Stow, ‘The Continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum: Some Revisionist Perspectives’, English Historical Review 119 (2004): 667–81.104 English Chronicle, 33.105 Fidelis is the term used in the Continuatio Eulogii, 396.106 English Chronicle, 33. This also referred to Henry IV's failure to send money to pay the Percies' troops, payment that was needed so as ‘not to disgrace the chivalry of the realm’: Kirby, Henry IV of England, 154. This portrayal of Henry IV as an unknightly king reinforces Marx's view that An English Chronicle cannot be seen in simple terms as a pro-Lancastrian narrative for this period: English Chronicle, xiv.107 English Chronicle, 33.108 Bothwell, Falling from Grace, 76.109 T.B. Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton Plot of 1415 (Gloucester: Sutton, 1988).110 Entry in the mayor of York's register for 1415, quoted in Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton Plot, 156.111 ‘Non erat … pene tam carus, preter fratres suos, sicut iste Henricus Scrop: quod palam probavit exhibicio dilectionis quam sibi frequenter ostendit’: SAC II, 660–1.112 ‘Henricum dominum Lescrop, de sibi magis domesticis et qui secretis regiis vix fuit alicui tercius in regno … Et prefatus Henricus dominus Lescrop, quia magis familiaris inimicus in maius vituperium’: Frank Taylor and John S. Roskell, eds. and trans., Gesta Henrici Quinti. The Deeds of Henry the Fifth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 18–19.113 On Henry V's use of the Garter, Collins, Order of the Garter, 115–16.114 ‘ … in cuius fidelitate totus animus regis requievit … Qui sub hypocrisi cuncta gerenda foris suppallians’: SAC II, 658–9.115 ‘ … quid predictus Henricus dominus Lescrop ut inde conscius et sepius cum eisdem proditoribus communicans et ad communicandum sepius consenciens nec prodicionem illam interim domino regi seu ejus consilio discoperuit set illud a dicto domino rege et ejus consilio totaliter concelavit’: ‘Henry V: Parliament of 1415, Text and Translation’, in PROME, vol. 9, Henry V 1413–1422, ed. C. Given-Wilson, 122, item 6.116 ‘ … ut proditores … quod ipsi distrahantur suspendantur et decapitentur’: ‘Parliament of 1415’, in PROME, vol. 9, Henry V 1413–1422, ed. Given-Wilson, 123, item 6.117 ‘Parliament of 1415’, in PROME, vol. 9, Henry V 1413–1422, ed. Given-Wilson, 123, item 6.118 ‘Et quia predictus Henricus dominus Lescrop est unus militum de illo inclito et excellenti ordine militari de la gartour … ipse tamen Henricus licet in eodem ordine pro delicto suo juste habeatur reprobus non tamen ordinem illum venerabilem hiis qui eodem digne utuntur pejorari nec reprobari quisque presumat’: ‘Parliament of 1415’, in PROME, vol. 9, Henry V 1413–1422, ed. Given-Wilson, 123–4, item 6.Additional informationE. Amanda McVitty is a PhD candidate in the School of Humanities at Massey University where she holds a Vice Chancellor's Doctoral Scholarship. Her doctoral research uses evidence from English treason cases c.1397–1422 to examine the ways in which identity and political subjecthood were being negotiated, with particular attention to relationships between gender, language, political agency and legitimate authority.
Referência(s)