PEARSON'S ENGLAND IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.*

WE are not surprised that Mr. Pearson should be willing to deal with the History of England in the Fourteenth Century. In so- doing he is carrying on his earlier work, and he has an attractive subject. The turning-points of historical interest will not always coincide with the close of the centuries, and in this case the reign of Edward H., dull in itself, stands apart from what follows. But when once we come to Edward III., there seems- to be an epic unity in the story, which tells first of his success. and splendour, culminating in the glories of Poitiers, and then of gradual declension, ending in the miserable tragedy of Richard II.

It is true that the splendour was, in a great measure, factitious ;_ that the war, in spite of the brilliancy of its victories, impoverished and demoralised the people. It may be added that warlike ardour meant, for the most part, a desire of plunder and ransoms, and•that the boasted chivalry of the age was but the fair-play which a gambler is bound to show to his opponent. To break the rules of the game was dangerous, as it might lead to retaliation, and no one could tell who would be the next loser. " Sire," said Sir Walter Manni, when Edward M. was inclined to press too hardly upon the defenders of Calais, " Sire, you may find you are wrong, for you are giving us a very bad example. Should you wish to send us to any of your fortresses, we shall not go so willingly if you have these people put to death, since we should have the same done to us in like case." Yet when we have said our worst as to the hollowness of chivalry and the mistaken ideals of men who neglected their home duties, and looked upon fighting as the only occupation for a gentleman, we must remember that they had an ideal, and that the " verray perfight gentil knight," such as Chaucer describes, was not a person to be treated with scorn. Moreover, the interest of Edward's reign is not confined to the French wars. The influence of Parliament, especially of the Commons, was continually increasing, and they were making their voice heard in matters about which they had not hitherto been consulted. Ecclesiastically, the connection of the Popes with France and their shameless rapacity fed the dislike to foreign in- fluences in the Church, which in the last centuryhad found a spokes-

• Englith giway in the Fourteenth Century. By Charles H. Pearson, late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. London: Itivinglonc. 1876.

matters helped, like the war, to quicken national consciousness; know of no reason for asserting that the Prince was solely re-

the needs of a rich and varied literature. Still clinging to its old the praise to his officers. Mr. Pearson's harshness in judging of forms, it expressed in Piers Plowman the wants and hopes of the the Prince is not confined to the question of his military talents. poor ; taught courtlier ways by Chaucer, it delighted the gentry ; " Altogether," he says, " England could scarcely have found a more while the translations and tracts of Wiclif and his followers fatal leader than the Black Prince ; uniting, as he did, the daz- spread themselves alike among rich and poor. zling qualities of a knight-errant to the lust of war for its own The period, then, is one which invites study, and Mr. Pearson sake, and to the ferocity that make [sic] conquest doubly accursed, has studied it carefully. We see all through his book that it has and the retention of foreign dominion impossible."

as to the events which he relates. No skill in narrative could acts of " ferocity " such as those which sully his fame, while his give a charm to the dismal story of Edward IL, but Mr. Pearson's high qualities are shown by the esteem in which he was held, no account of the reign is clear and fair. If the frequent changes in less by his companions-in-arms than by the nation at large. His the composition of parties and their swift alternations of success services to the Good Parliament deserve, too, a more generous and disaster puzzle him at times, this is only what must happen recognition than Mr. Pearson gives them. In fact, Mr. Pearson to every historian who does not allow his fancy to supply defects pays him an unconscious compliment, in judging him by a higher of evidence. When he comes to the time of Edward III., he standard than any of his contemporaries.

traces very carefully the causes which led to the great war with Richard II. meets with more kindly treatment. His strong France. Not only French, but many English, writers have laid points are clearly brought out, and full allowance is made for the the blame solely on Edward's ambition, and have taxed him with difficulties which he had to encounter. The story of his reign is bad faith in putting forward a claim to the French Crown which well set before us, with its rapid turns of fortune, in which the he must have known to be empty. Mr. Pearson is more just. King seemed at one moment to be reduced to bondage, at another He shows that the policy of the French King was naturally hostile to have won despotic power. We think that Mr. Pearson over- to England, since he could not cease to covet Guienne, while he estimates Richard's chances of success when he says :—" Could supported the Scots in all their quarrels with the English, and he have held his hands from his cousin's heritage, at least till that even tried to stir them up when they were not troublesome cousin was in his power, Richard would probably have succeeded enough of their own motion. For Edward, if he would not sub- in transforming the English monarchy after the French model." mit to the encroachments of Philip, it was simply a question Had Richard been a thrifty, far-seeing, vigorous ruler, the people whether he should make war in his own time and manner, or wait might possibly have submitted to his exercise of absolute power, the convenience of the French ; and as against a declared enemy though the idea of constitutional government was already deeply his claim to the Crown of France, weak as it was, was not a rooted enough to make this doubtful. But lavish, self-indulgent, weapon to be slighted. As Mr. Pearson remarks, "It allowed and capricious as he was, he began at once to use his extraordinary subjects and vassals of France to serve Edward without incurring powers so as to stir up hatred. The robbery of Lancaster was the worst reproach of treason." The need for the step was shown but one among many acts of oppression committed for the sake when, in his first campaign, the Counts of Hainault and Namur of money, and it furnished a leader to redress the common dis- left him at the French frontier, that they might not fight against content.

their suzerain. Thus far we have expressed our dissent from Mr. Pearson only

Mr. Pearson refrains from giving any opinion on Edward's in matters of opinion, but we are sorry to add that there are ability as a General, and it is a point on which it is difficult to faults which make the book unsatisfactory, in spite of its author's come to a conclusion. Had he planned the campaign of Crecy competent knowledge of his subject. We have seldom seen a precisely as it took place, he could hardly have arranged it better. volume so carelessly printed. The very list of errata (which By landing at La Hogue, he came upon a rich and defenceless contains several corrections that ought not to have been needed) country, where his army could find plenty of provisions and blunders gratuitously in its direction, "for Gaines read Guienne." plunder, while the diversion he made was as useful as his presence Among the uncorrected mistakes we find Adams, Bishop of Win- to the English forces in Aquitaine. Crecy gave him glory, and chester (p. 133), for Adam Orlton ; Sir Thomas Howard (p. 179) the capture of Calais a gateway into France. Yet his great for Holland, first husband of the Fair Maid of Kent ; Robert of victory was a happy chance, which he would have been glad to Waldoch for Baldock. The youthful students, for whom we sup- avoid. There is some evidence that soon after his arrival in pose these handbooks of special periods are composed, may easily France he spoke of going to Calais, but his march showed no be led astray by faults of this kind, especially as no references fixed purpose, and it is probable that, but for the completeness tell them where to learn better. "The numerous estates of alien of the French defeat, he would have returned to England with- princes were repeatedly sequestered " might suggest queer notions out gaining anything of more value than the plunder of Nor- to a boy who did not know that he ought to read "priories," and mandy. One quality of a General, at least, must be allowed to he might wonder from what authoritative source Chandos "heard him,—unshaken courage, and the power of inspiring confidence that Don Pedro had put himself out of the pale of humanity."

in his army. We have noted more, but these are enough as a specimen.

Again, at Poitiers it may be said that success was thrust upon Mr. Pearson in his preface, dated from Melbourne, apologises in the English. They had been engaged in a mere marauding raid, advance for errata, on the ground of difficulty in correcting the when they were interrupted in their plundering and wasting by proofs at a great distance. Yet surely it was possible for the finding the French army actually across the line of their retreat. publishers, with the help of the "general editor," to find some one Mr. Pearson, who does not blame King Edward, judges the capable of correcting such gross mistakes, which are of serious im- Black Prince more severely. He says, "Nothing so far could portance in a school-book. But we have not only to complain of have been worse than Prince Edward's generalship. He had misprints. Mr. Pearson seems not to have thought it worth while advanced without support and without plan into the middle of a to carry into the details of composition the industry which he has hostile country, and had taken no pains to inform himself of the shown in the collection of materials. Sometimes carelessness neighbourhood of an enormous army. He himself said afterwards shows itself in such sentences as this :—" The King of Bohemia, that be hoped to meet his father and the Duke of Lancaster, but John of Luxemburg, who was brother-in-law of Charles le Bel, he evidently took no care to learn whether his father had sailed." and the heir to the crown of Bohemia, had married Philip's sister." We think the blame exaggerated. It makes no allowance for the Sometimes, as in speaking of the ordinance issued in 1366 to stop difficulties of planning a campaign and arranging combined opera- the quarrel between the University of Oxford and the Friars, the tions in days when there were neither steam, telegraph, nor above story is told in so confused a way as to be incomprehensible to all, maps. Besides we may fairly say that the Prince's splendid any one who does not know it already. Those who do can see success did not merely make up for his rashness, but partly justi- that Mr. Pearson knows all about it, but has not taken the trouble fied it. He bad a right to act more ,boldly than he could have to explain himself clearly. Again, in his account of the Treaty of done against an army of equal quality with his own. But Mr. Bretigni, he says :—" King John was to pay a ransom of 3,000,000 Pearson tells us further that both at Poitiers and Navarrete the crowns, equal to about 1500,000 of English money." The

manin Grossetete, and which now led to the first attempt at aRefor- Prince was saved from the effect of his bad generalship by the mation, under the leadership of Wiclif. This feeling in Church tactical skill of his officers and the bravery of his troops. We matters helped, like the war, to quicken national consciousness; know of no reason for asserting that the Prince was solely re- and the English language, which at the beginning of the century sponsible for the strategy, but left the tactics to others ; and had scarcely been admitted to good society, was found fit to serve without such proof it is unfair to give all the blame to him and

the needs of a rich and varied literature. Still clinging to its old the praise to his officers. Mr. Pearson's harshness in judging of forms, it expressed in Piers Plowman the wants and hopes of the the Prince is not confined to the question of his military talents. poor ; taught courtlier ways by Chaucer, it delighted the gentry ; " Altogether," he says, " England could scarcely have found a more while the translations and tracts of Wiclif and his followers fatal leader than the Black Prince ; uniting, as he did, the daz- spread themselves alike among rich and poor. zling qualities of a knight-errant to the lust of war for its own The period, then, is one which invites study, and Mr. Pearson sake, and to the ferocity that make [sic] conquest doubly accursed, has studied it carefully. We see all through his book that it has and the retention of foreign dominion impossible."

not been compiled from current histories, with occasional verifica- This language, due, perhaps, partly to reaction against the tions from original sources, but that it is the work of one who excessive praise sometimes given to the Prince, is, we think, un- has made himself familiar with the contemporary authorities, so just. His faults, like his virtues, were those of his age. It would that he has the power and the right to form independent views be difficult to find any leaders of his day who never committed as to the events which he relates. No skill in narrative could acts of " ferocity " such as those which sully his fame, while his give a charm to the dismal story of Edward IL, but Mr. Pearson's high qualities are shown by the esteem in which he was held, no account of the reign is clear and fair. If the frequent changes in less by his companions-in-arms than by the nation at large. His the composition of parties and their swift alternations of success services to the Good Parliament deserve, too, a more generous and disaster puzzle him at times, this is only what must happen recognition than Mr. Pearson gives them. In fact, Mr. Pearson to every historian who does not allow his fancy to supply defects pays him an unconscious compliment, in judging him by a higher of evidence. When he comes to the time of Edward III., he standard than any of his contemporaries.

traces very carefully the causes which led to the great war with Richard II. meets with more kindly treatment. His strong France. Not only French, but many English, writers have laid points are clearly brought out, and full allowance is made for the the blame solely on Edward's ambition, and have taxed him with difficulties which he had to encounter. The story of his reign is bad faith in putting forward a claim to the French Crown which well set before us, with its rapid turns of fortune, in which the he must have known to be empty. Mr. Pearson is more just. King seemed at one moment to be reduced to bondage, at another He shows that the policy of the French King was naturally hostile to have won despotic power. We think that Mr. Pearson over- to England, since he could not cease to covet Guienne, while he estimates Richard's chances of success when he says :—" Could supported the Scots in all their quarrels with the English, and he have held his hands from his cousin's heritage, at least till that even tried to stir them up when they were not troublesome cousin was in his power, Richard would probably have succeeded enough of their own motion. For Edward, if he would not sub- in transforming the English monarchy after the French model." mit to the encroachments of Philip, it was simply a question Had Richard been a thrifty, far-seeing, vigorous ruler, the people whether he should make war in his own time and manner, or wait might possibly have submitted to his exercise of absolute power, the convenience of the French ; and as against a declared enemy though the idea of constitutional government was already deeply his claim to the Crown of France, weak as it was, was not a rooted enough to make this doubtful. But lavish, self-indulgent, weapon to be slighted. As Mr. Pearson remarks, "It allowed and capricious as he was, he began at once to use his extraordinary subjects and vassals of France to serve Edward without incurring powers so as to stir up hatred. The robbery of Lancaster was the worst reproach of treason." The need for the step was shown but one among many acts of oppression committed for the sake when, in his first campaign, the Counts of Hainault and Namur of money, and it furnished a leader to redress the common dis- left him at the French frontier, that they might not fight against content. reckoning is Walsingham's, and is, no doubt, correct, but we ought surely to be told that, since the pound sterling contained more than twice as much silver then as now, the equivalent in English money of the present day would be about £1,160,000. We may add that Sir John Dagworth (p. 151) should be Sir Thomas, and that John of Gaunt was not Chancellor of Oxford in 1381. The chancellor at that time was William Berton, and the ornamental chancellor of modern days had not yet come into fashion.

We trust that Mr. Pearson will think it worth while to give his book the thorough revision which will make it a valuable hand- book. It will add to its value if he will give references to his authorities. Pauli and Henri Martin may be good guides, but to many students they are more difficult to come at than Froissart and the Rolls of Parliament.