Martial Books and Tudor Verse 9780231886154

Citation preview

MARTIAL BOOKS and T U D O R VERSE

MARTIAL BOOKS and TUDOR VERSE

G. Geoffrey Langsam

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia University

KING'S CROWN PRESS Columbia University, New York 1951

COPYRIGHT

1951

BY

G.

GEOFFREY

LANGSAM

KING'S CROWN PRESS is a n i m p r i n t established by C o l u m -

bia University Press for the purpose of making certain scholarly material available at minimum cost. Toward that end, the publishers have used standardized formats incorporating every reasonable economy that does not interfere with legibility. T h e author has assumed complete responsibility for editorial style and proofreading.

PUBLISHED

IN

GREAT

B R I T A I N , CANADA, AND

INDIA

BY G E O F F R E Y C U M B E R L E G E , OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y LONDON, TORONTO, AND

MANUFACTURED

IN THE

PRESS

BOMBAY

U N I T E D STATES OF

AMERICA

TO DOT AND DAD who lugged when I lagged

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE AUTHOR WISHES to express his special thanks to Professor Oscar J . Campbell, under whose guidance this work was begun and with whose help and encouragement it was completed. For their valuable criticism, the author also wishes to thank the late Professor Harry Morgan Ayres and Professors Roger Sherman Loomis, Elliott V . K . Dobbie, and Maurice J. Valency—all of Columbia University. T h e ever cordial help of the Director of Libraries of Columbia University, Carl Milton White, and of his staff, especially Miss Constance R . Winchell, Miss Jean F . Macalister, and Miss Jacqueline Castles, is gratefully acknowledged. T h e author also wishes to thank the University Council on Research, of Tulane University, for material assistance in completing this work. G . GEOFFREY LANGSAM

CONTENTS Introduction I

Martial Books Justification of War

II

i 4 5

Unity and Preparedness

14

The Prince and His Officers

18

The Soldier

24

Shakespeare and the Drama

38

III

The Ballad

116

IV

Churchyard and Gascoigne

146

V

The Mirror for Magistrates

170

Conclusion

175

VI

Notes

177

Bibliography

199

Index

209

INTRODUCTION THE NUMEROUS MILITARY engagements in which sixteenth-century England took part directly or as an interested spectator and the problems connected with them and the soldiers who took part in them have been described voluminously both in contemporary and in modern writings. Inevitably these actions and the problems related to them found expression in every conceivable literary form of the day: in official and semi-official documents and records, in histories, in published and unpublished sermons and letters, in news pamphlets, military books, the drama, the ballad, and other forms of prose and non-dramatic verse. T h e manifestation of this popular interest in military books and in narrative verse is the subject of this study. N o attempt is made to add to the body of our historical knowledge about sixteenth-century warfare or to re-evaluate the facts and theories with which historians and other scholars have long concerned themselves. It is hoped, however, that the following survey may familiarize the reader of today in some measure with what the sixteenth-century English reader and theatergoer was likely to know of military matters, and accordingly to furnish him with an historical perspective toward the martial allusions which fill Tudor literature. T h e military books and pamphlets concerned themselves with a justification of war on scriptural, historical, and philosophical grounds. They distinguished between just and unjust wars; they defended the profession and the honor of the soldier; they discriminated between the professional and the soldier of the levy; they defined military ethics; they presented the ideal soldier and his officers, and criticized adversely those who had shamed their profession; they described the organization of the army, its arms, munitions, equipment, and supply; they concerned themselves with methods of levying soldiers,

2

introduction

with transport, mustering, training, pay, liaison; they taught methods of fortification and a host of other military matters. Their chief sources were the Scriptures, history, earlier military writings, contemporary practice at home and abroad, and personal experience. T h e drama, inhibited in some measure by law from making capital of contemporary military engagements, colored its accounts of previous battles by the light of contemporary martial theory and practice. It stressed the chivalrous and heroic aspect of war on the one hand, and on the other developed the ludicrous in its low comedy scenes. Often it employed accounts of battle to teach a moral or political lesson. In Shakespeare's plays pre-eminently, it revealed the thoughts and problems of the contemporary soldier. Neither the broadside nor the folk ballad was unbiased or reliable for details of fact, but whereas the latter was perpetuated and polished by oral repetition, the former appeared in print directly. T h e broadside was frequently a mere versification of a news pamphlet and was prone to be even less critical of its accuracy, for all its protestations, than was its source. T h e news element in these street ballads was at times, again as in the news pamphlets themselves, a mere vehicle for the pointing of some moral or lesson. It did, however, succeed in bringing the news of the day or editorial comment thereon to a large public, even to the unlettered. Narrative accounts of martial life and experiences by soldiers themselves lend the vividness and authenticity to be found in autobiography. Here we find the very battleground of martial ambitions and disappointments, of ideals and stern facts, of romantic experience and painfully realistic suffering. Numerous sermons and exhortatory pamphlets concerned themselves with stirring the English populace from lethargy to united preparedness for war, particularly in times of national crisis. They stress biblical arguments in support of "just wars" and outline the religious, the moral, and the ethical obligations of officers and men.

Introduction

3

Heated controversy arose over the definition of "just wars" after the severance of the English Church from Roman Catholicism. The religious arguments appear also in the military texts, where these deal with the justification of wars and the military profession, where they compare the ideal with the real soldier, and where they discuss the mutual obligations between the state and the military.

Chapter I MARTIAL BOOKS PERHAPS IT IS TRUE, as Sir Julian Corbett writes, that old military books "arc among the most useless and dead of books."

1

But aside from the

charm they exercise for their occasional bits of soldierly wisdom and for the insight they give into the life of the contemporary soldier, they reflect in some measure the characteristics of their age: Renaissance veneration of all things Roman doubtless played a large part in the extensive plagiarism f r o m the classics in English martial writings. Moreover, the conflict between the nascent and the senescent, so typical of the Renaissance, was not absent. T o be sure, England was f a r behind the Continent in military science: tradition and custom have always died hard there; nor was England torn by the major conflicts which raged in Europe and quickly brought with them new weapons and new stratagems of war. In his excellent critical Bibliography, Captain Maurice J. D . Cockle lists seventy-six books published in English on military matters before 1603. Many of these are translations of foreign works, but even where no foreign source is indicated in the Bibliography, there is heavy borrowing from continental sources either directly or at second or third hand. Indeed, there is little or nothing here of military innovation. 2 However, as our interest in these works is not that of the historian of military science, w e shall not need to assay their orginality. W e are concerned with them for the light they throw on Renaissance attitudes toward the military and for such details as may reveal trends and interests in some of the more narrowly literary works of the period in England. They advance religious, historical, and philosophical arguments to justify "right" wars and the soldier; they dwell on England's glorious military accomplishments of old, on her martial

Martial Boo1{s

5

decay in recent years, on the excellence of the reigning prince despite disappointments suffered by soldier and by veteran; they reveal the seasoned soldier and the raw recruit, the self-seeking officer and the noble captain; perpetually they admonish England to be prepared militarily against foreign invasion, to stand united against the "traitorous" Catholic at home and the "treacherous" papist abroad. JUSTIFICATION OF

WAR

Theories about the origin of war were advanced in the military books as an argument justifying armed conflict on grounds drawn from natural law. War itself, George Whetstone points out, is of foul origin, but defense against war is a necessity and crowns the soldier with honor. Though somewhat fanciful, his account of the origin of war is not without its deeper significance: At what time, Ambition, the Impe of miscreate Envy, upon desire of Soveraigntie, begat Warre; Necessitie, Inventresse of all Pollicies, artes, and Mecanicall Craftes, devised many Engines for Warre: the use whereof, gave first reputation unto the Souldier, who ever since hath beene honorably esteemed.3 In an attempt to indicate what wars are just on grounds of natural law, Thomas Procter, in his Of the Knowledge and Conducte of Wanes (1578), also gives an account of the origins of armed conflict. As God gave the world to men, no one, at first, had private right or title, but "possession caused good right" according to natural and civil law. Continued possession further established personal title; but men, being evil and ambitious, coveted what belonged to others, and so war was inevitable.4 Procter traces the history of war from biblical times, beginning with Cain, who built a city to defend himself against the people of "eastern lands." The sons of Noah, Procter asserts, formed the second military age. Then followed Nimrod, whose city of Babel soon fell because it was built by oppression and the outrages of war. Mars, son of Saturn, who was king of Crete about the time of Moses, "made

6

Martial

Boof{s

warre of ambition, and lordlye minde to rule"; but Hercules, the patron of Justice and champion of noble prowess, who lived about the time of Saul, King of Judea, "thrust him selfe into all daungers of battaile, to redresse injuries, represse rapyne, and oppression, to roote out tirantes, to maintayne and defende right." 5 The stormy soldier and diplomat, Sir John Smythe, a Roman Catholic and a staunch conservative, also concerns himself with the justification of war and goes back to primitive society to establish its necessity. In his Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie (1595), he points out that the change from solitary to communal life was motivated by the natural desire of all men for peace and happiness. The realization of this desire further involved the setting up of defenses against internal and external forces of destruction. Military science was the necessary agent for establishing and maintaining the good life set forth by religion and by "policie." 6 Though war is regarded as inevitable in most of the military books, its horrors are generally recognized and an attempt is made to distinguish just from unjust wars. Armed conflict is usually held to be permissible only as a last resort for obtaining ultimate peace, for the safety and preservation of the commonwealth, for the suppression of tyranny in foreign states, for the protection of property, for the fulfillment of treaty obligations, for the maintenance and—at times— for the establishment of "true" religion. Count Jacopo di Porcia, for example, maintains in his The Preceptes of Warre that armed conflict is justified only as a last resort and not by desire for rule or covetousness. "For thys purpose thou do it," he declares, "to lyve afterwards peaceable, and in quyete, not wyllynge to sowe and stere up battayl after battayle, the which thynge is both foolysshe and cruell." 7 Barnabe Rich, who saw service in the Low Countries together with Thomas Churchyard and George Gascoigne, like them combined literary endeavor with military pursuits. In his Allarme to England (1578), he cites the evils of war: it afflicts the poor and innocent,

Martial Boo\s

7

brings good laws to decay, suppresses equity, profanes, kills, defiles, and destroys states. But despite these evils, he declares, it was ordained by God for the preservation of the commonwealth, because the state cannot exist without the support of arms. Any war which secures the safety of the state is a happy war, but peace which brings a nation into danger is most miserable. Though he admits that peace ordinarily is more desirable than war, he holds that war is often the safest means of procuring or of maintaining peace.8 So zealous was Geoffry Gates for the advancement of the military profession that, being an "unlettered man" (as he describes himself), he hired a notary to put in writing his argument in defense and praise of warlike prowess. Perhaps his literary limitations moved him to lay particularly heavy stress on the importance of experience as a teacher. He opens The Defence of Militarie Profession (1579) with many examples that show its importance and concludes: "He therefore that judgeth or directeth against experience, is not in deede a man, but a foole more ignorant than a beast." 9 Experience, Gates contends, admonishes England to be prepared. She need only look to the Continent to be shaken from her false sense of security, and must not permit herself to be lulled to a false feeling of safety by her geographic isolation from continental conflict. All men naturally tend to evil and are moved to just action only through coercion. Justice and civil policy can be neither established nor maintained without the help of martial prowess. The polity is threatened by dissolution not only from foreign countries, but also from rebellion within, and can hope to endure only through an active and well-trained military, "the friend and nurse of Laws, of Religion and of civell concord." The alternative to military alertness is disaster, "for it is a rare age of the worlde, wherein the sureste Kingdome, and the safeste state and nation upon earth, flieth not at one time or other to the covert and succor of Arms, to save it selfe either from intestine violence, or from forren depopulation, or else from both." Defeat brings with it the reign of lust and of the tyrant despoiler. 10

8

Martial Books

Many religious arguments are adduced in the military books to authorize just wars. Barnabe Rich maintains that God does not forbid the prince to use force, if need be, to maintain his right, to maintain true religion, to gain security, or to suppress a foreign tyrant (an oppressor or usurper). War is a tool used by God himself. War and its two companions, pestilence and famine, are the three darts which God shoots against the earth when He is displeased.11 Geoffry Gates also asserts that God uses war and famine to punish the wicked; to plant, maintain, and restore religion; to deliver the righteous from oppression.12 War is not merely sanctioned, but is approved of by the Lord, declares Procter.13 Rich declares war to be expressly commanded by God and refers to Genesis, chapter 14, where it is recounted how Abraham raised a force of his own trained servants to bring back his brother Lot from captivity; to Numbers, chapter 31, where God commands Moses to make war on the Midianites; to Joshua, chapter 8, where the Jews are even commanded to take spoil; and to I Samuel, chapter 15, where war is shown to be more pleasing to God than peace.14 The argument that God himself instructed men in the military arts is considerably expanded in Smythe's Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie (1595), by an analysis of the opening chapters of the Book of Numbers. Smythe adds the interesting note that God indeed could have effected his purposes without the help of an army, but his orders were to "be a continual instruction unto them and all other princes and governours of nations that they should have special regard (next after divine lawes . . . and lawes politike) to the establishment of laws orders and exercises military." 1 8 Bertrand de Loque's Deux traites (1588) were soon translated into English for, among other excellent qualities in these Discourses of Warre, as the translator, I. Eliot, noted, the writing was "grounded on God's holy word." Bertrand de Loque lists the following six reasons to prove that it is lawful for a Christian prince to make war and supports each reason with many biblical references:

Martial Books

9

t. Because God hath so expressly commaunded. 2. Because God himselfe hath at sundry times counselled, and taught his servantes, how they ought to governe themselves in warre. 3. Because God himselfe in holy writ is called the God of Hostes: and the Lord God of battels. Likewise that just warres are called the battels of God. 4. Because many Kinges and Princes are highly commended in holy writt, for that they had warred valliantly against their enemies. 5. Because Jesus Christ and his Disciples have allowed the warre. 6. For the Prince beareth not the sword in vain . . . because he is the servant of God, for the safegard of the good, and the punishment of the wicked. 18 Against those who held that the N e w Testament does not sanction war, Rich maintains that Christ removed Old Testament ceremonies, but not arts like the military. If H e had cast out the military art, H e would have overthrown the commonwealth, and that is unthinkable. T h e magistrate is armed for internal, and the soldier for external defense of the commonwealth. Furthermore, that the N e w Testament does not condemn war is clear, as John prescribes the laws of right conduct for soldiers. 1 7 A s just wars are held to be commanded by God, it follows that a just God must give victory to the righteous. Procter supports this contention with his observation of the lesson of history, "that warres justlie made, for the more parte, growe to good effects, and the violent empyre lasteth not longe. Battail attempted for pompe, or ambitious desire of dominion, nor regardinge right or wrongge, seldome hath good successe: or else the frutes had thereby, soone fade, such victories take no roote."

18

T h e wars in the L o w Countries are pictured by Geoffry Gates as the noble struggle of Protestants against the fierce and inhuman forces of tyranny and Catholicism. Many a miracle appears to Gates in these recent occurrences. H e even sees the Lord's kindly intervention on behalf of the Protestants when H e sends a plague to their besieged forces in Leiden. Thus, by killing off six thousand, H e makes the food

io

Martial Books

in the city last longer and enables the besieged to hold out against the beleaguering forces until succor comes. 19 Pacifists are hardly dealt with by Rich. War, he declares, is commonly hated by the covetous, who abhor the expense of war, and by the cowardly and idle, who fear they may be pressed into service. Even those who would abstain from war because of reasons of conscience are misled. 20 Christ's command to Peter to put up his sword, according to de Loque, refers to private revenge only, and not to the prince (or his duly appointed officers) acting according to law. This power is vested in the prince, as he is the earthly representative of God. 2 1 Procter asserts that the command to turn the other cheek and Christ's threat that he that takes the sword shall perish by the sword refer only to private instances and to those in which there is an effective machinery for the exercise of just law. Where there is no judicial system to fall back upon, "warres, and armes may be used for maintenance and defence of vertue and ryght, and great good grow thereof." 2 2 Though most of the military books concede the evils attendant on war, they do not necessarily conclude that peace is a more blessed state. The evils committed in wars certainly do not please God, declares Rich, but these evils appear in times of peace also, for peace breeds vice. T o favor such peace is not mercy, but foolish pity, and is itself a vice. Indeed, peace may be a form of punishment sent by the Lord, for "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth." 2 3 When the Lord wishes to advance a nation, declares Geoffry Gates, He stirs it up to high courage and readiness for war, but "when the Lord meaneth to plague a wicked nation for sinne . . . he filleth them with the fatnesse of the earth, and geaveth them peace that they may wax rotten in idlenesse, and become dulle wittes, . . . that when the spoiler commeth, they may in al points be unfurnished of warlike prowesse, and not able to resiste, but so made a pray to their enemies." 24 Besides the establishing of civil order and justice, Procter credits

Martial Bookj

n

another salutary effect to wars. They demonstrate the preparedness of a nation to defend itself against all comers and so discourage further aggression. 25 He warns, in his preface to Of the Knowledge and Conducte of Warres (1578), that long peace has brought about the decay of the military profession in England.- 6 Most of the military books are in agreement that just wars can be waged only at the behest of the ruler, for vengeance is the Lord's and that of his representatives on earth. All justification of rebellion is hereby obviated, as Bertrand de Loque makes clear: For sithens private men have not receaved the sword from God, if they take it in hand, to use it, and strike, having no authority from their superiour, they are ipso facto seditious persons, for so saith the Law, albeit the cause seeme just. But when the Prince delivereth over the sword, which God hath given into his hand to dispose, it is an other thing. For if he cause the offender to die, be it uppon a gibbit by sentence of a Judge, be it in warres, it is not he, to speake properly, who doth this execution, but it is God himselfe who doth it, by the sword which he hath committed into his hande, as unto his Lieutenant, and that according to law and right. Provided neverthelesse, that the prince or magistrate execute justice, as becommeth the servant of God, without any private grudge or pretence of revenge. For so he himselfe should also be a murtherer, and should transgresse the cammaundement of God.27 Though the prince does not act "as becommeth the servant of God," it is apparently not for his subjects to pass judgment upon him. De Loque does not expand this aspect of the problem, but it is evident that the punishment of the prince rests directly on other princes and on God. T h e Catholic position, by and large, adds a third punitive force, that of the Church. The Catholic question, whether the subject is relieved of the stigma of rebellion when the prince has been excommunicated, does not, of course, concern the Protestant de Loque. Like Procter, de Loque recognizes the justice of war for defense of property and person (i*., by the state) :

12

Martial Boo\s

When it commcth to the point of repulsing the violence and injury of tyrants that give the onset: . . . it cannot bee denyed, but by the law of God and man it is tollerable for innocency to defend it selte by some means when it is injuried and outraged, and that nature hath not in vaine grafted in the harts of all living creatures a desire to preserve and maintaine their lives and goods: who will then deny that it is lawfull for a Prince to take armes and to goe to the field to defend his estate, and to kepe his subjects from the fury of the invaders?28 War for the protection of property, de Loque points out, may be fought not only by the nation directly concerned, but also for its allied powers. 29 Justification of intervention in domestic issues in foreign countries is also ingeniously advanced by Rich, in his Allarme to England (1578), as he reasons that the Christian may not rise up in armed rebellion against his anointed prince. It is incumbent, therefore, upon neighboring princes to correct such enormities and abuses, and to punish the offenders, "to the ende that the name of a King might not seeme odious and hatefull to the common sort of people." 3 0 The same responsibility for the defense of religion is placed with the prince at home and abroad, according to de Loque. In this case his foreign obligations are not limited by treaties. The king's oath of consecration establishes his position, not alone as a member of the Church, but as a guardian of its entire body. Should it fall, his decline will quickly follow. Accordingly he may justly wage war: "First against Apostates, that fall from the faith. . . . Secondly . . . for the defence of the Church, when a Prince being an enemie of God, and an Idolater would offer violence and oppresse it, to the end to establish a fained religion, and to suppresse the truth." 3 1 Thomas Procter's concept of "just" wars was far less conservative than that of de Loque. With full approval he cites examples of wars to bring men from "disorder without government, neither comfortably to themselves, nor commodiouslye one for an other" and "to refourme them into an happie and civill sorte of life." Here, in short, is justification not only for religious or defensive war and for

Martial Books

13

the suppression of tyranny, but also a rather confused anticipation of the "white man's burden" theory. Procter continues his rather muddled argument even further, supporting war of aggression where it yields "sufficient matter, for noble courages to worke upon, so that prowesse shal never be so shut up, but it may have a commendable course." But he cautions that there should be "a regarde to the feare of God, for the vertuous direction and good ende thereof."

32

Among the books considered, then, there seems to be fairly general agreement in the justice of "right war." Fourquevaux is somewhat more conservative than the other writers we have considered in holding mercenary and all voluntary military service to be sinful. Soldiers who are levied and then killed in battle, he maintains, will be forgiven their sins, but the case of the volunteer, or of the adventurer and soldier of fortune, is less blessed. 33 T h a t such a philosophy should have been unpalatable to most professional soldiers goes without saying. Further, with the increasing complexity of war and the need for experienced leaders, such a concept was highly impracticable. T h e only way in which a nation at peace was able to keep up to date in military matters was to keep its officers and soldiers engaged as mercenaries in foreign wars. A practical example of the value of such foreign education may be seen in Sir Roger Williams, who not only served under the Spaniard, but then used the military training he had acquired from him against the Spaniard. Though one writer developed this detail and another that, the argument justifying war then current may be summed up roughly as follows: Man being evil, war is rational and is justly established and employed by God. F r o m their inception among men, the concepts of property and of community have implied respectively defense against deprivation and against internal and external forces of destruction. Such defense, it was held, can best be secured by maintenance of a strong army which not only can overcome disturbances, but also will discourage foreign aggression. In a kingdom, the prince, being responsible for the safety of his people, is the head of the army.

14

Martial Books

His responsibility, however, extends beyond the bournes of the kingdom in upholding religion, justice, and morality, and in fulfilling treaty obligations. An extreme position favors war as a chivalrous and military exercise which prevents the debility resulting from protracted peace. More commonly writers recognize the horrors of war and warn that it must not be undertaken except for weighty reasons and as a last resort. Theological arguments hold that the Lord of Hosts commands wars and even instructs man in the military arts. Further, the soldier is esteemed by God, who himself employs war to establish religion, to punish, and to reform. History is advanced to show that war is necessary for the establishment, maintenance, and growth of nations. Religious, philosophic, and military authorities are adduced in support of each detail. UNITY

AND PREPAREDNESS

Arguments justifying right war and stressing the importance of military preparedness and national unity flooded the British presses whenever England was threatened by rebellion or by foreign aggression. Sir Richard Morison, in his An Exhortation to Styre All Englishe Men to the Defence of Theyr Countreye, warns the English, in 1539, not to trust the Pope, whose hostility to England is motivated by materialistic ambition, not by religious zeal, by lust for pelf, not by piety. The Catholic potentate has summoned princes from battling against pagans to fight against a Christian king. Sir Richard then proceeds with the usual Protestant argument (as long as Queen Mary was not persecuting them) that the prince is God's anointed and all obedience is due to him by the subject on pain of eternal damnation. He appeals to the national pride of English papists and anti-papists, cheering them on to concerted efforts at self-defense by calling to mind England's heroic history, her victories over the French in the past and in recent years. He urges their loyalty to Henry V I I I who has prepared the nation for all eventualities, making

Martial Books

15

of it a veritable fortress. G o d himself is on England's side and has shown her great favor, turning even the " R i s i n g in the N o r t h " to her advantage, for it served only to weed out those who would have hurt E n g l a n d and provided young gentlemen with the necessary training and equipment for the defense of the nation. Sir Richard seeks to shame the sluggards into active loyalty to king and country. " W e r e it not our great shame," he asks, "to suffer his highness [Henry V I I I ] to travaile alone?" H e cites the recent report of an ambassador that "thactyvitie of Englyshmen hath ben greate . . . but . . . it is nothynge so nowe. . . . Those Englyshemen are deade," only to f a n the then traditional hatred between England and France, and to ask, " W h a t thynge had Englande ever, that it now lacketh? . . . W e r e there ever mo rewardes for vertue . . . as there be nowe, sythens E n g l a n d e was E n g l a n d ? " 8 4 N o man was held to be exempt f r o m military service. Even the clergy, w h o were not required to g o into combat, were expected to contribute financially or with goods. 3 5 Procter urges those w h o cannot themselves fight to be the readier to enable others to do so. 3 6 Gates argues that military service is but an aspect of Christian duty and deals harshly with those who would hire substitutes f r o m lower social classes to fulfill their obligations. 3 7 A r g u m e n t s to stir the country to preparedness, like those of Morison, were renewed and augmented to the end of the century. T h e basic argument was the classic threat that the commonwealth cannot stand long unless supported by the military. 3 8 A g a i n and again, E n g land is warned that these times are particularly dangerous because of the prevalence of evil, or because of the threat of one or another of the European powers. T h e horrors of defeat are depicted. Sir Richard, fulminating against the Pope, warns of captivity and bondage. 3 9 Until 1585, it was the French who largely served as the ever-present enemy of E n g l a n d ; after that time, the Spaniards took their place. Gates warns that there is no safety in England's geographic location. 4 0 Peace is a god-given time for preparation, but an idle peace

16

Martial Boo\s

brings with it weakness and corruption which invite aggression and the destruction of the commonwealth. 41 England is warned by foreign examples: the Turks are well prepared and the Germans keep themselves in readiness.42 The old Romans knew better than to rest in idleness. The self-taught mathematical genius, William Bourne, notes that England is behind the Continent in gunnery and admonishes that a good gunner is always to be valued, and generally, that we provide in harvest to live in winter. 43 Gyles Clayton points out that England's military training and personnel in times of peace are far from adequate in quantity and quality. England's pride and patriotism are called upon and her weaknesses are pointed out: her shortage of leaders, her corrupt and inefficient methods of appointing officers and men, her mistreatment or neglect of those that are appointed, the debilitating effect of long peace.44 Against those who fear that preparedness against aggression endangers the realm by the threat of armed rebellion within the nation, Smythe in his Instructions provides detailed argument. He points out that rebellion occurs where there is injustice and bad government whether or not the people are armed. Statesmen who discourage the arming and training of people do so "because they would that princes and governors should the more safely without any danger of mutiny, tyrannize, and exact their own pleasures upon their subjects." But such counsel, he warns, has cost many a king and emperor his realm and frequently his life either through rebellion or through foreign aggression. Taking his text from Isaiah, chapters 3 and 5, he holds that a nation whose people are not trained in arms is clearly cursed of the Lord. 48 It is a sure sign, Smythe argues, that God has turned against a prince or magistrate, when either through neglect or for his own wicked ends, he disarms his subjects "suffering them willinglie, and as it were of purpose to growe to many vices and effeminacies, that thereby they may the more safely exact, tyrannise, and mannage them at their owne pleasure." But rebellion or unexpected foreign wars

Martial Boo\s

17

are sure to follow. On the contrary, where good military discipline is maintained, God's favor is apparent: the subjects are loyal and able not only to defend themselves at home, but also to lead their prince to victory abroad. Among such subjects a ruler who governs with justice need fear no rebellion. If, contrary to all likelihood, there should be any rebellion, the prince with well-trained subjects or a standing army will be in a much better position to quell it from the very start.46 Toward the end of his Instructions, Smythe again concerns himself with the presumed threat by an armed citizenry to their own nation. He describes how in England the weapons are kept in some armory in the chief town or towns of the shire, or in the houses of some gentlemen or captains "under pretence for the more safe, and clean, and neat keeping of them, as also to take awaie the opportunities of the peoples sudden arming of themselves in case they should take armes, the same beeing alreadie in their houses, with intention to revolt, and rebell." 4 7 If the soldier's oath they take will not keep them from rebelling, surely the lack of weapons will not restrain them. Further, if rebellion breaks out as a result of the ambition of some nobleman, or because they feel themselves wronged by the prince, the weapons will quickly find their way into the hands of the rebels. As most rebellions of the common people begin where many men are gathered together, arms collected in unfortified towns, like those in England, would be all the readier for the rebellious mob. But regardless of where the weapons are kept, rebellion cannot so be stopped: witness the uprising under Robert Rett, in Norfolk. Though the rebels started an insurrection without weapons, they soon made or acquired them. The only real security against rebellion is the reign of justice "with great care had to protect, preserve, maintaine, increase and continue the common wealth of the subjectes in al prosperitie." The prince should train and arm his citizenry well. The best place for the weapons, Smythe contends, is in the homes of the rich who

18

Martial Books

furnish them, or in the chief houses of the parish if the arms are supplied at its expense. In this way the armor will be readily accessible in time of need, will be available for use in training, and will not be distributed helter-skelter at common arms depots. 48 Having noted thus far the general arguments defining and defending just wars and upholding the need for national unity and military alertness, we shall now consider the function of the prince as head of national defense, of his officers, and of the common soldiers who executed the orders passed down through the hierarchy of command. THE

P R I N C E AND H i s

OFFICERS

T h e prevailing Protestant position in the sixteenth century recognized the prince as supreme head of the defense of the nation both from internal disorder and from external aggression. W e have noted that, at least in some instances, his authority as God's anointed was held to extend beyond the national barrier where he was called upon to uphold treaty obligations, to defend true religion, and even to uphold justice against tyranny. T h e question as to what constituted true religion seems to have been regarded as more or less academic. Protestants (to bundle the very diverse anti-papal beliefs under a convenient label) held that the Bible clearly answered all religious questions, and accordingly it was an easy matter to determine what was true religion. T h e Catholics (to use another term vaguely) maintained that the Church and its authority defined true religion. Though both Protestants and Catholics diverged widely among themselves, both felt there was little room for just argument against them. Whatever then was regarded as true religion, the prince was to uphold it. T h e question as to what the subject was to do if he disagreed with the prince was answered diversely by both parties at diverse times, depending largely on whether or not the reigning prince sided with or against them. As we do not wish to enter the tremendous field of the literature of rebellion, suffice it here to show

Martial Bookj

19

the extremes of both positions. The Catholics held that a prince who had been excommunicated by the Church ceased to be a prince, and accordingly the subject was absolved of all allegiance. The extreme form of Protestantism was more likely to assume the position of passive resistance. A subject whose prince failed to follow the dictates of true religion was not, it held, absolved from obedience. He was required, however, on pain of damnation to commit no antireligious act. In other words, the subject was not permitted to take arms against the Lord's anointed, but he was obliged to take the consequences for refusing to commit any overt anti-religious act. The problems as to how the soldier was to act if he had religious scruples concerning the justice of his prince's wars was a peculiarly knotty one. Fourquevaux flatly declares that the soldier is not to question the right of the prince to make war as responsibility for this decision rests entirely with the prince.49 Gyles Clayton, though his attention is here directed more to army discipline than to the religious question, seems to be in essential agreement with Fourquevaux. "Obedience," he declares, "is of great force . . . for it proceedeth from God, that the Princes themselves . . . must be obedient, although the precepts be contrarie to the mindes of some Souldiours, who be not worthie to knowe the secretes of the Officers in theyr authoritie: yet must they in all poynts obey them both by the Lawes of God and theyr Prince, though the thinges be both painfull and perrilous unto them." 5 0 Robert Barret begs the question in his The Theorize and Practice of Moderne Warres. T o the Gentleman's query whether it is "no grudge" to the soldier's conscience to fight against other Christians with whom the prince makes war, the Captain replies, "I suppose none, for the souldier is bound to serve his Prince, and to defend his desseignes; and it toucheth him not, much to examine whether the warre be just or unjust, not being against Gods true religion: but in such a case, I would wish men to be well advised." 5 1 The specific military duties of the ruler are summed up in the fol-

20

Martial

Bool^s

lowing list: ( i ) He is to make sure his cause is just and lawful and that pacific means will not avail. (2) He is to take all steps he deems necessary for the national defense, including the training of the citizenry in military matters. (3) He is to select capable and effective leadership and to appoint his deputies. (4) He is to furnish manpower and all necessary equipment. (5) He is to secure expert counsel concerning the enemy. On all these points there is general agreement in the military books. 52 The importance of the prince's part in training the military became ever more urgent with the increasing complexity of martial tactics and machinery. Thomas Styward and Clayton both point out that the equipment furnished England by its wise and generous rulers is not enough, for in the hands of untrained personnel it is well-nigh useless. Of course, neither Styward nor Clayton was sufficiently foolhardy to place the blame for the lack of trained men in England on the prince. Styward, with considerable justification, places the fault on those who were to carry out the orders of the Queen and her Council. He explains that inadequate and improper training of English soldiers result from the "simple execution" of the orders of the Queen and the incompetence of the muster masters.83 Where the prince himself served as general, it was his responsibility to select the top military officers to serve under him. These were answerable to him for the captains of bands they selected. The captains in turn were charged with the responsibility of selecting their bands and appointing subordinate officers. If the prince appointed a general to serve in his place, the hierarchy of command was simply extended one more step/'4 The officer was to be sworn into service with formality so that he would be impressed with the responsibility of his post. Thomas Digges in his Arithmeticall Military Treatise cites the oath of office administered to the nobility and captains by the Prince of Conde in the civil wars of France:

Martial Boo\s

21

Yc shall sweare before the Living God, that . . . yee shal adventure your Bodyes, Lyves, and Goodes, and al other meanes that God hath given you, under the charge and obeysaunce of the saide Prince, whome yee knowledge as Chiefe, and Conductor of this Armie, yee sweare and promise your Obedience to all, what soever shall by the saide Prince or such as beare charge or office under him be commaunded, by them shall be prescribed for the governement of this Armie, etc.55 The importance of selecting the right man for the right job was keenly felt. Though the machinery for personnel assignment was not developed as it is today, the value of ascertaining the special aptitudes of officers and soldiers was not underestimated.56 Inexperienced men, even though they have the right personal characteristics and the necessary theoretical knowledge, are held, in military books, to be inadequate for positions of command. Again and again, they point out that the effective leader must have both theoretical knowledge and practical training in actual combat. But even the experienced and well-informed are urged to select a fit council of advisers and to heed its advice. The experienced soldier, though he has no social or military rank, is to be given audience. Smythe takes to task those officers in the Low Countries who foolishly disdained advice, and "have not onelie contemned and disdained to have anie counsell about them, or to take counsel of some of their Captaines and other Officers, but have also spoken to the blame and reproach of some notable and very sufficient Generalls of this time, because they have used in all important matters to consult with their Counsellors." 07 The ideal qualifications for various types of martial leaders and of officers are rehashed ad nauseam in the military writings. Though captains were frequently commoners of unusual qualities raised from the ranks, it was generally conceded that the commander should be of noble birth, jealous of his reputation, of high personal morality and without covetousness; he should be moderate, continent, temperate in matters of the senses as well as in dress; he should be courteous;

22

Martial Boo\s

he should be frank yet full of stratagems; he should be quick-witted and valiant, but not rash; he should be merciful, pitiful, and just; he should be experienced and trained in military matters from his youth; he should be able to keep a secret; he should have "authority," the indefinable something which is now called "leadership"; he should love his soldiers and be as a father to them. Besides these qualities, according to Count Porcia (and his classical sources), he should be lucky. 58 The true militarist was irritated by the inefficient and corrupt manner in which officers were, in fact, appointed in England, to form a body of leaders far from this ideal. He resented the by-passing of soldiers of proven merit who had demonstrated their love of England and their passion for honor by those who bought their commissions to secure economic gain or who, for all their ineptitude, were appointed by favoritism. Barnabe Rich attests to the commonness of appointment, "more for the favour then for knowledge mor for friendship then for experience, and more for affection borne them by some noble man, then either for valiance or vertue." 69 Despite the long peace of Elizabeth's early reign, Barret makes clear in his Theori\e and Practice (1598) that he is less troubled with fear that there is a shortage of good officer material in England, that there are not enough men who have advanced from rank to rank on the basis of experience and tried virtue, than that they will not be appointed to their proper responsible positions because of favoritism. 60 The danger of employing inexperienced and ignorant officers is stressed heavily in the English military works. Boldness and valor alone are not sufficient to justify appointment to leadership. " A n d how many times doth it fall out," asks Rich, "that where battelles be ordered, by such rash and harebrained governours, that they ordinarily doe bringe foorth but unhappie issues?" 6 1 Humphrey Barwick does not limit himself to generalities, but cites contemporary examples of the actual harm done by inex-

Martial Books

23

perienced officers, even where their intentions may have been fine. H e recounts that E d w a r d Randall, w h o had been sent to Ireland by Queen Elizabeth in the tenth year of her reign, dispatched four hundred foot soldiers and fifty horsemen against an enemy of three thousand because he had failed to make proper reconnaissance. H e a r i n g of the plight of this detachment, he charged the enemy pell-mell, without stopping to put his own forces in proper formation and without giving his shot a chance to fire a volley against the enemy. Accordingly many of his men and he himself were mowed down. T h e victory went to the English just the same, Barwick points out, but the chronicles give Randall the glory for the merit of the unsung captains who took charge after his death. A less bloody and more amusing picture of the rawness of some of the English officers must appear in the blunt Barwick's own words: After that I had beene in the French Kings service from the 6. yeere of Edward the 6. unto the siege of Saint-quintans in Fraunce, at which time I did come to the said Camp, where the saide Earle [of Pembroke] was Lieftenant of the English army unto the King: it pleased his Lordship to call mee to him and to talke with me of divers French matters: and after many discourses what preparations were made in Fraunce, it pleased his Lo. to aske me who was cheefe in the Towne of Saintquintine, I tolde his Lo. the Admirall [Marginal note: "Admirall Satylyon"] and his brother Andelot, he asked mine opinion of the Admirals courage and knowledge: I tolde his Lo. that he was both wise and valiant, as any that ever I had served under. No, no, said the Earle, you are deceived, he is wise but not valiant; I did not replye any further in that point, thinking that the Earle by his great wisdome, knewe more then my selfe, being then but young, but the Admirall did prove my opinion sufficiently: then the Earle did ask me what I thought of that armie [the English forces], and if that I had ever seen the like: I said it was a goodly armye, and that I had seene the like at divers times. Yea saide the Earle, but did you ever see the like expedition that is made in battering the walles of the Town? I demaunded of his Lo. how long the same had beene placed, his Lo. answered 14. daies. I saide that I had seene as much doon in three daies, the which was of greater strength then that was off: he asked mee where, I tolde him, and after some other speeches, his

24

Martial Books

Lo. departed for that time. Now his Lo. had never seen the like before: wherfore it seemed to him a new thing: this is not any reproche to that noble and woorthy Earle, for how can any man whatsoever he be, know that he did never see? e 2 T h e paternalism which the English writers favor is very different from the hard but just impartiality Machiavelli would have the commander exercise in dealing out fixed rewards and punishments to his soldiers. 63 H o w much more pleasing than Machiavelli's is the picture of the captain and his relation to his men as depicted by William Garrard, w h o served as a mercenary for fourteen years in the L o w Countries. In his Arte of Warre ( 1 5 9 1 ) , he writes: Hee [the captain] ought alwaies to lodge with his band, and remaine with the same both in good and evill, and continually shewe himselfe loving and courteous, and take such part as the souldiers do: for contrariwise, taking his ease, and suffering them to bee lodged or fed miserably, breedeth him hatred or contempt. Neither ought hee to shun toile and travaile, but carefullie take delight and liking to bee alwaies the first, that with provident prudence doth lay his hand to any worke, or performe any enterprise which is convenient to bee done: for that for the most part the rude stubborne multitude of souldiers is not constrained and forced so much, to do his dutie by compulsion, as they be voluntarie moved thereunto through shame, and a reverent respect they have to the example of their superiour.94 Styward goes even further than Garrard and ascribes to the officer a responsibility which extends not only to the care of the soldier under him, but also to concern for the welfare of the veteran. 8 5 THE

SOLDIER

In large measure, a justification of war implies a justification of the military profession. In the instance of Fourquevaux, however, a distinction is drawn between the soldier of fortune and the levied soldier.

Fourquevaux retains a feeling of distaste for men who

willingly enter the bloody business of war for material gain or even

Martial Boo1{S

25

to attain honor. No such squeamishness is expressed by the professional soldier, Rich. In his Allarme he raises the question, "whether he that is honest, may take upon him the profession of a Souldier?" 0 6 He ci:es biblical examples to show that military men were frequently favored by the Lord, as was Abraham. Further, he points out that Moses was instructed to appoint to the position of captain men of courage, lovers of truth, haters of covetousness, the God-fearing. Scriptures are cited to demonstrate the honors accorded soldiers, and historic examples of pious and God-fearing captains and soldiers are called to mind. Rich, contrary to Fourquevaux, favors the professional rather than the levied soldier. Like so many of his brothers-in-arms, he felt that much of the ill will expressed by the people toward the soldier was the direct result of the misbehavior of the soldiers of the levy. He concedes that some become soldiers to spoil rather than to do service, but these do not discredit the profession. Such reasoning would smirci the merchant's, the lawyer's, and even the minister's profession, for undesirables can be found in each of these fields.07 The classics furnished an inexhaustible source of examples of the honor in which the military profession and the soldier were anciently held.08 Much, too, was made of the classical theory that humble birth is no hindrance to martial glory. 89 Whetstone points out that Alexander and Caesar would call the meanest soldiers "companions, fellowes," and hold out to them hope of preferment. "A high encouragement, to bee valiant," Whetstone remarks, "when valour by government, is able to raise a man from the Carte, to be a Sovenigne Captaines [Wc]." But there was some division of feeling on th-s point, for according to English tradition, the noble assumed the position of leadership in the army as in civil life. In fact, however, the professional soldier, because of his experience and training, was cften placed in a superior military post. Disciplinary problems inevitably resulted from this fact. Lest it be argued that martial nobility is a thing of the past, Rich

26

Martial

Boo\s

quickly notes that though there are but few officers in England, men of great virtue may readily be found among them, and cites the exemplary behavior of the garrison lying in Berwick (the "only place to make any choice on" in England) as evidence of the excellence of military order and discipline.70 Rich asserts that those skilled in military leadership are also best equipped for civil command, and John Smythe, in his Instructions, repeats the claim of Marcus Tully "that al other arts do rest in safety under the shadow and protection of the Art and science military," and holds that therefore it is to be preferred above all other sciences.71 Having once established its importance for maintaining true religion, all social order and justice, and the commonwealth, the military writer finds it is an easy step to a consideration of society's debt to the noble soldier both in view of the hardships he must bear professionally and in view of his value as a counsellor and an administrator in society. Rich dwells on the provisions made in ancient days for the care and honoring of soldiers. He cites Octavian Augustus and describes the honors accorded soldiers forty years old or older who have seen service for at least ten years.72 Contemporary France and Spain accord special honors to soldiers, and even "drunken" Denmark and Sweden make provision for him by a tax on beer. Only England lags behind in honoring her heroes, except when she has need of them. The complaint of Kipling's Tommy Atkins is no new one. Rich declares, "When there is occasion to use them, then, Helpe noble captaines, Now shewe your selves couragious, and worthie souldiers: but service once being ended, they be quite forgotten, that ever there was any neede of them, for any thing they are like to get." 7 3 But even at best, however great the honors done him, Whetstone feels the soldier pays a high price for his glory, for "he is bound to march in the depth of winter, and the heate of Sommer, to lye upon the bare ground: and which is worst, to fetch his meate out of the

Martial Boo\s

27

Canons mouth, or to sterve in the besieged towne: with many deadly dangers, which the toung of him that hath felt them, can deliver better, then my pen that have but heard them." 7 4 Dissatisfaction was expressed by the writers of military books both with the treatment accorded the soldier and the veteran and with the supposed decadence of the profession itself. Much of this discontent was, perhaps, simply the perennial human tendency to look back to the good old days, but there was also considerable justification for a feeling of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Barret admits that the ill conduct of many of England's soldiers has merited public wrath, but he attributes these malpractices to the types of people levied as officers and men and to poor discipline, "for manny have ben chosen by favor, friendship, or affection, little respecting their experience, vertues, or vices; whereby most commonly, the fawning flatterer, the audacious prater, the subtill makeshift, is preferred before the silent man, the approoved person, or the plaine dealing fellow. Then such being chosen and preferred, how do you thinke the conduction shold be good. Againe, the Companies that are commonlie levied, are drawne forth by the Justices of peace, who to disburden their towne or shire of corrupt weeds, as they tearme it, do picke out the scumme of their countrie, thinking such men sufficient for the warres." 7 5 Many of the military books declare that the nobility and gentry do not furnish a military example and adequate skilled leadership. Large numbers are tempted to enter other fields of endeavor and interest, like law; others are idle, or grown "delicate," or are tempted by the lucre to be had in other fields. When they do enter service, they lack experience.78 Rich feels they ought to learn the profession from the bottom and, if necessary, from men of lower social standing, though he admits superiority in aptitude is generally found among the gentry.77 But Smythe has little respect for an army whose officers are not of high social standing. He even maintains that no gentleman should fill the position of harquebusier.78

Martial Boo\s

28

Economic reasons for the decay of the military profession are also cited. T h e nobility and gentry are alone able to afford the support of war and the maintenance of well-trained officers. 79 It is pointed out what danger arises where captains, as well as their men, are needy and of low social standing. 80 Military positions are bought and sold. 81 Captains who seek office for money are either inexperienced or else unscrupulous, extorting a profit from their soldiers and even cheating their prince. 8 2 When without personal means, they are forced into dishonesty, for their pay is inadequate: " N o Captaine that hath but four shillinges a day, shall be able to furnish himselfe to his calling, and the healping of his Souldiours, except he rob his Prince and poule his Souldiours of their pay."

83

Many of the dishonest devices practiced by the officers are described by Smythe and Rich. When they have received money for dispersal among their soldiers, the officers send their men to danger spots to be killed off, only to pocket the money; or again, they let the soldiers forage for themselves and withhold their money. They sell equipment that should go to their men and sell or rent their bands to other officers. They pay their soldiers in commodities and profit shamefully by the exchange. They hire lubbers to stand musters and discharge them immediately after the musters, or use other shifts to secure "dead-pays," that is, allowances for more men than are actually in their bands. 84 Many additional causes for the decay of the military profession are cited. Long peace breeds general debility and the decay of military order and discipline. 85 Rich suggests that this ailment may, in part, be remedied by study from books, though such theoretical training must be supplemented by actual experience. 86 Civil wars cause military decay by impoverishing the land, destroying leadership and corrupting discipline. Sir John Smythe even contends that the services of Englishmen in the civil wars of France and the Low Countries have corrupted England's domestic military. Insubordinate captains and petty officers destroy the unity of command. T h e hiring of

Martial Booths

29

mercenaries disrupts military discipline and weakens the national forces. 8 7 T h e conservative Sir John would add to all these causes the newfangledness of the age. S o m e h o w he reasons that the use of the b o w furthers sobriety and obedience whereas the use of the musket brings with it dissoluteness and drunkenness. 8 8 T h e r e is general agreement a m o n g the military writers that a good soldier should be honest, pious, valorous, obedient, silent, neat, diligent, healthy, strong, and agile. 8 9 T h e criteria of physical fitness are taken f r o m the classics directly or indirectly. A favorite form is the one reproduced by F o u r q u e v a u x : T h e best tokens to knowe them by, that are fittest for this occupation, are lively and quicke eyes, straight headded, high breasted, large shoulders, long armes, strong fingers, little bellied, great thighes, slender legges, and drie feete; . . . because he that is so shaped, cannot fayle to be nimble and strong; which are two qualities to bee greatly required in all good souldiers. 90 Procter, who seems to have acquired his knowledge of the wars largely from books, and these the classics (though he names Machiavelli and Sir Richard Morison in his preface), cherishes the levy as a means of purging the commonwealth "pestered wyth idle and unprofitable m e n " ;

91

but Gates takes violent issue with this position:

Foolishe therefore and beastely is the common speach, used of the base and humble mynded sort of our natione, that doe not onely saye, but also affirme in their doinges, that the worst sort of men, (and such as for the vilenes of their conditiones the earth is not able to susteyne) are fit for the warres: and accordingly doe call out the refuse of the people to be soldiers for the service of their Prince and countreie, where in deede the worthiest people ought to be chosen, and preferred: as to a state most honorable, and of most credite and importance. 92 Garrard also points out that one of such "ruffians and c o m m o n hackers that live idle in the streetes" is enough to corrupt and disorder an entire band and to cause mutinies. 9 3 Rich readily admits that of such m e n as are levied commonly in England, m a n y will never become soldiers, no matter how long they are in training. 9 4

30

Martial

Boo\s

There is some disagreement as to who makes the better soldier, the manual worker, like the farmer, or the city man. Tradition favors the man of muscle, on the whole, but Rich dissents. He argues that such laborers lack the nimbleness and quickness requisite in modern warfare; and when their bellies are not full they lack courage. Those who arc used to dainty food will readily acquire an appetite for coarser fare when they are sufficiently hungry. Besides, he points out, the manual worker lacks pride in his appearance and thus will make the force look shoddy and bedraggled instead of neat and spry, as it must look if it is to instill proper fear in the enemy. 95 The usual method of levying in England is described by Rich through the Mercury of his Dialogue: The Princc, or Counsayll, sendeth downe theyr warrant, to certayne Commissioners, of everye such Shyer where they mynde too have such a number of Souldyers to bee levyed and appoynted, the Commissioner he sendeth hys precept to the hye Constable of everye Hundred, the hye Constable of everye Hundred he geveth knowledge to everye petye Constable of everye Parrysh within his cyrquet, that uppon such a daye, he must bring two or three able and suffycient men, to serve the Prince, before such Commissioners, to such a place.96 The mustering of incompetents is the fault of these minor officials, Rich asserts, for: the pety Constable when he perceyveth that wars are in hand, foreseeing the toyles, the infinite perilles, and troublesome travayles that is incident to Souldyers, is loth that anye honest man through his procurement, should hazard himselfe amongst so many daungers, wherfore if within his office, there hap to remayne any idle fellow, som dronkard, or sediciouse quariler, a privye picker, or such a one as hath some skill in stealing of a Goose, these shall be presented to the servyce of the Prince, and what servyce is to bee loked for amongst such fellowes, I thinke may easily be deemed, and I will somethinge shewe. Fyrst by the way as they travayle through the Countrey, where they chaunce to lye all nyght, the goodwyfe hath spedde well if shee fynde hyr sheetes in the morning, or if this happe to fayle yet a coverlet, or Curtins from the bed, or a Carpet from the table, some table clothes, or table

Martial Books

31

napkins, or some other thing must needes packe away with them, there comes nothing amisse if it will serve to by drinke. And lykewise as they go by the waye, wo be to that Pyge, Gose, Capon, Hen, Sheepe, or Lambe, that fortunes to come in their walke. Then in the ende, when they come in the place of service, where generally there are no such loose endes in common to be founde, bicause they must have something to keepe them selves in ure, then his felowes shyrtes, his sword, his dager, his Caliver, his Moryon, or some other parts of his furniture, must suffice the turne." Motivated possibly by his attempt to paint the picture of the "new school" of officers in the L o w Countries as black as possible, Smythe presents some defense of the English recruit: Some of our such ["New School"] men of warre have not beene ashamed, manie times to report and say, that all those brave people that have beene consumed and lost in the Low Countries, and those other forementioned warres [the Portuguese expedition under Drake and Norris in 1589] by their disorders . . . were the very scomme, theeves, and roges of England, and therefore have beene very well lost; and that the Realme (being too full of people) is very well ridde of them, and that if they had not beene consumed in those warres, they would have died under a hedge, with divers other such brutish and infernall speeches, even like unto themselves, and to the newe discipline by them invented and practized, rather to dispeople a kingdome of England of the youth and floure thereof, than anie wayes to doo anie hurt unto the enemie. Whereas contrariwise it is very wel knowen unto all the Justices of peace in al shires of England; from whence those Souldiors did go voluntarie, or otherwise, even from the beginning of the first voluntarie warres, untill this day, (saving such as were levied in the Citie of London by commission, and some few roges in one yeare levied in other shires) that they were in a verie great part yong Gentlemen, and in a farre greater part of Yeomen and Yeomens sonnes, and the rest of the bravest sort of Artificers, and other lustie yong men, desirous of a gallantries of mind, to adventure themselves, and see the warres, many thousands of the which (being the verie floure of England) did farre exceed, and excell our such men of warre both in goodlines of personage and worthines of mind; and these were no roges, nor theeves, nor the scomme of England, as those our such men of warre doo ofttimes report; for it is verie well knowne in all shires by experience,

32

Martial

Boof(s

that such malefactors and base minded people, never had any desire, will to go into anie Warres and actions Militaries, but have hidden absented themselves away during the times of musters and levies, when the same have been past, they have againe followed their occupations of robbing, pilfering and stealing. 98

nor and and vile

In justicc to Sir John it must be pointed out that the volunteers who served in the Low Countries were indeed above the average levied soldier. Unfortunately, however, the volunteers who answered the roll of the drum on recruiting campaigns to serve as privates and the gentlemen volunteers represented a minority of Elizabeth's soldiers both in the Low Countries and elsewhere. The largest body of soldiers was still impressed as they had been since the days of Edward I. But that there was considerable truth in Sir John Smythe's assertion that all sorts of dodges were practiced to avoid military duty is born out by Gates, writing some ten years earlier, as he contrasts the attitude of the people toward the military which ought to prevail, and the real state of affairs in England. The rurall man, by bribes, by a liverie Coate, by franke laboured friendship, by counterfaite sickenesse, or by starting from his house under colour of farre business, doth shifte himselfe from the ordinances of the prince. . . . The citizen or townesman, doe inlike wise put forth his apprentice, his servannt, or poore hireling, to supply his place, and so withdraweth his owne person from the royall ordinances being himself of commendable sufficiencie in body [ ( ] had it an honest heart). 99 Gates further points out that contrary to English practice, in France, Spain, and Germany the merchants and lawyers do not feel that they have fulfilled their obligations by a generous monetary support of the military, but themselves study to become expert soldiers. H e praises the gentlemen of Germany for never walking abroad without their swords by their sides, a sign of the preparedness of the country and the prevalence of right military discipline. 1 0 0

Martial Books

33

But though technically every Englishman was held to be responsible for military duty, either financially or through actual service, we have already noted the general tendency to impress the unemployed. Thomas Procter holds it advisable to press first the husbandmen and men of other occupations who may on their return from the wars resume their civil trades; also those who have sufficient means to support themselves with the return of peace. H e recommends that men with many dependents be exempted from service if sufficient others are available. 1 0 1 A s a matter of fact, in 1598, legislation was passed to help the veteran get back his old job.102 There is general agreement in these works that the good soldier should be able to return to self-supporting work when he has been discharged from the army if he is not awarded a pension or some other form of permanent help, but there is none of Machiavelli's well-nigh pathological fear of the professional soldier. 1 0 3 Whatever else the soldier may be, the militarists agree that he should be pious. Faced with the constant threat of violent death, he is like a man who is very sick, and had best see to the well-being of his soul at all times. Further, the importance of his position, the power that is placed in his hands, make it imperative that he should at all times be guided by Christian morality and virtue. T h o u g h at times it may be his duty to kill, he is to be merciful when he can and to abstain from murder in cold blood. A soldier w h o is not pious cannot be trusted in any army, for the oath of office he takes is meaningless and he can be depended upon neither for loyalty nor for obedience. 104 H e must abstain from gambling and swearing, and his word must be like an oath. After piety comes obedience. Roger Ascham descants on this virtue and cites Plato to the effect that it is the highest praise and virtue of the soldier. H e explains succinctly how obedience may be taught the soldier through fear and love. 1 0 5 Such obedience, Garrard points out, is due the captain regardless of whether he be below

34

Martial

Books

the soldier In social rank or whether he be vicious in his personal habits. 106 Despite the lack of discipline in the English army, as suggested by much that has been reported above, the militarists staunchly maintain that order and discipline are to be enforced in the army even more rigorously than in civil life. In a city, Gates declares, infirmities may be tolerated, but not in an army which is "the extreeme remedie to chastise, and to represse the insolencie, injuries, and offences of others." 1 0 7 Rich cites an example from the classics to show that even the semblance of vice must be avoided and draws a contrast both with the common soldiers newly levied by the corrupt English system and with the captains who countenance vice in their bands. 108 Gluttony and drunkenness must be sharply punished and the example of the Frenchman, the Italian, and the Spaniard of cruel spoiling after victory must be eschewed. 109 Holy places must not be desecrated and holy persons must be respected and protected. "But now adaies," Styward laments, "they be the first to whome abuse is offered, of what opinion or religion so ever they bee." 110 Free time should be spent in military exercises or in learning a trade, for idleness is the corrupter of armies. 111 Punishments meted out to the soldier were harsh, and many long lists of offenses punishable by death appeared. 112 However, the value of good example rather than of punitive measures was recognized. 113 With the increasing complexity of armed conflict employing fire power, it became ever clearer that neither arms and military furniture nor mere manpower was sufficient for effective combat. T h e classics were cited as authority to prove that wisdom is superior to might in battle. Peter Betham points out that even strong walls and forts are of little value unless propped up by good counsellors. 114 Arms and munitions without trained men to use them are declared to be useless.115 Rich points out that victory does not

Martial Books

35

comc to the largest army, or even to that with the hardiest men, but to the well-trained. 118 Officers need considerable training, experience and intelligence besides courage and other admirable qualities. Soldiers are not born to their profession, Digges warns, they are made. Nor can they rest on past training, for unless they are exercised continually they lose their proficiency. Even a nation as unwarlike as the Dutch, given proper guidance and training, makes a good showing. 117 That training is not merely the pounding of fact into the head of the recruit is stressed by Styward, who shows that considerable attention must be paid to putting the soldier in the right frame of mind. 1 1 8 Though the value of the old military discipline is accepted generally, at least among the more modern spirits it is recognized that new weapons require new training, techniques, and tactics. 119 The problem of care for the veteran inevitably came up. On the one hand, Machiavelli argued that there should be no professional soldiers, and accordingly, the wars over, all men should at once return to their civil occupations. The advisability, in general, of such a return to civil occupation among the temporary soldiers was conceded. 120 On the other hand, there was a feeling, bolstered by long classical tradition, that it was beneath the dignity of an ex-captain or a soldier of long standing to turn to a rrlenial position after his honorable estate. In any case, there were the aged, the disabled, and the crippled, who, having suffered in the service of their country, were held to be its charges. A happy solution both for the nation and for the veteran was suggested in the use of the experienced soldier as a civil servant and as a teacher in a national military training program. 121 Unfortunately, however, another aspect of the veteran problem was the control of the veteran who was corrupt and idle by choice. Smythe is particularly sharp in pointing out the great numbers of ne'er-do-wells that came out of the Low Countries; not, to be sure, because right military life produced such idlers, but—he maintains—

36

Martial Booths

because military discipline was completely lacking there. Useful and even noble people, Smythe contends, were corrupted in this school for crime, from which they brought back two great vices: the tendency toward drunkenness and the discarding of the bow for powder and shot. 122 Though occasionally in these military tracts one runs into a patriotic outburst to the effect that English soldiers are superior to all other soldiers, one is more apt to read that England's forces are behind those of the Continent, as indeed they were. Not, of course, because Englishmen are not made of the right stuff, but because of the long peace the country enjoyed, especially in the early reign of Elizabeth, and because of the softness which comes from success and economic well-being. The forthright Sir Roger Williams, for example, concedes that the hargulatiers of France are better than England's light horsemen. The fault, he hastens to point out, is not lack of bravery on the part of the English, but that modern weapons must be employed for effective modern warfare.123 Bourne, too, in contrasting the continental gunner with the English gunner, however much he praises the valor of the latter, does not deny the superiority of the former. 124 The picture of England in the sixteenth century, as it appears from the military writings we have considered, reveals many resemblances to our own day and country, especially during the period prior to the recent world war. The professional soldier, more conscious of the danger and imminence of war than the average peace-loving citizen, warns the nation to unity and preparedness against hostile neighbors who only await an opportune time to pounce upon a nation grown sluggish in the enjoyment of wealth and feeble in the prosperity of peace. The soldiers call upon the nation's pride in its martial history to stir it to action, and they try to justify themselves against the popular disfavor usually shown the military in times of peace. They stress the importance of their profession to the community, its high moral standards, its glorious history, its religious and

Martial Bookj

37

ethical justification. Just war is described by them as predominantly defensive, whether it be in defense of religion, the state, property, honor, or traditional liberties and justice. T h e essential conservatism of soldiers is manifested within the organization of the army, a feudal, paternalistic hierarchy marked by vestiges of chivalry. But despite the tendency of the militarists toward conservatism, we find a conflict among them brought about by the younger spirits who favor the latest methods and engines of warfare. In many respects the use of gas-propelled pellets seemed as strange and threatening to the sixteenth century as the atom bomb does to the twentieth. 1 2 5 Valuable as the military books are as a source of information concerning military affairs in the sixteenth century, and useful though they be in shedding light on literary allusions to martial subjects, it is to the literature itself, and notably to the drama, that we must turn for an integration of these details, for insight into the thoughts and emotions of the soldier, and for the attitudes of the citizenry toward the military. Here detail and fact are synthesized and inspired with life.

Chapter II SHAKESPEARE AND THE DRAMA 1 human endeavor the student of the Renaissance considers, almost without exception, he finds some light in the writings of Shakespeare. Even the historian of the British Army, Sir John W. Fortescue, in his history of the British Army, declares: " N o t in these poor pages but in Shakespeare's must the military student read the history of the Elizabethan soldier." 2 W H A T E V E R FIELD OF

Though we find warnings that England should hold herself in readiness against internal and external foes by presenting a united front to the world and by diligence in military matters; though we find pleas for the amelioration of the lot of the soldier and for grateful concern over the lot of the veteran; though we find lighthearted portrayal of the musters and opprobrium for the offenses committed by soldier and veteran; though we find representation, in the dramas of other Elizabethans, of this or that detail that concerned the writers of military texts, Shakespeare alone among them gives expression to the deeper problems that troubled the soldier of his times. H e considers the extent to which the soldier is responsible for his part in battle, the concern of the soldier for the welfare of his soul should he die on the field of battle with the blood of the enemy still hot upon him, the resentment of the commoner against a military system in which the nobility may still regard war as a rough sport and may look forward to ransom should they fall into the hands of the enemy, whereas the common soldier, fighting without the protection of heavy and expensive armor, may expect short shrift and quick burial. Only Shakespeare, among Elizabethan dramatists, paints the soldier on so large a canvas and with such rich detail and liveliness. Though he may draw detail and text from

Shakespeare and the Drama

39

historic or dramatic sources, clearly he goes beyond them. T h a t he had personal experience as a soldier we cannot say, but it seems probable that he was familiar with some of the military literature already considered in Chapter I. This conclusion is not based on any verbal similarities with military texts, but on his detailed knowledge of the military problems of his day and on his familiarity with the jargon of the soldiery. 3 H e does not limit himself to either of the two common streams into whose banks most of his contemporary dramatists channelled themselves. In the one stream we find those who glorify the soldier or veteran and signify the worth of all other characters by their dealings with him. In the other, we find an exploitation of the soldier and veteran largely for low comedy. T h e laws of England limited the dramatist in the use of current materials, but such limitation could hardly have curbed so eminent a writer as Shakespeare when he attempted to hold the glass up to his age. Professor E . K . Chambers points out the weakness of government censorship in this respect: It has been the experience of many governments that the most rigid censorship of 'books' of plays does not afford a complete guarantee of the inoffensiveness of the performances actually given upon the stage. A few lines of 'gag' are easily inserted; an emphasis, a gesture, a 'make-up' may fill with malicious intention a scene which read harmlessly enough in the privacy of the censor's study. And as nothing draws like topical allusions, it sometimes happened that the activities of the Master of the Revels did not prevent the players from overstepping the boundaries of what the somewhat arbitrary susceptibilities of the government would tolerate. It must not be supposed that the Elizabethan injunction against any intermeddling with politics or religion on the stage was to be taken with absolute literalness. Up to a point the players had a fairly free hand even with contemporary events. They might represent if they would, such feats of English arms as the siege of Turnhout with all realism. They might mock foreign potentates, if they did not, as was sometimes the case, embarrass Elizabeth's diplomacy in so doing.4 T h o u g h Shakespeare does not treat contemporary historic events openly in the plays written within our period, he is obviously under

40

Shakespeare and the Drama

the influence of contemporary theory and practice in military matters. None of the Tudor plays I have considered comes to grips directly with the question of the justice of war, as do the military books, but the justice of war is tacitly implied in them through the common treatment of the preparedness theme, in the expressed belief that God brings victory to the just side, and in the presumption that those who treat the military with kindness themselves have merit. Further, the identification of soldiery qualities with the ideal qualities of the prince and the characterization of noble soldiers show a general acceptance of war as good, or at least as inevitable. Though war may not be condemned in these plays, its horrors are frequently depicted. Perhaps the most obvious picture of the terror of war may be found in A Larum for London, or the Siege of Antwerp, where the cruelty of the Spanish victor is emphasized. In Shakespeare the cruelty of civil war rather than of armed international conflict is mostly stressed and commonly contrasted with blessed peace. Thus, in King John, when Philip the Bastard picks up the dead body of Arthur, Duke of Bretagne, he declares: Now for the bare-pick'd bone of majesty Doth dogged war bristle his angry crest And snarleth in the gende eyes of peace Now powers from home and discontents at home Meet in one line; and vast confusion waits, As doth a raven on a sick-fall'n beast, The imminent decay of wrested pomp. (IV. Hi. 148-54) So again in King Richard the Second, the King stops the duel between Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray and banishes them, lest from their pride and ambition the horrors of civil war be unleashed " T o wake our peace, which in our country's cradle/ Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle sleep." Henry V I , alone on a hill, wishes he were dead as he watches the uncertain battle between the forces led by his queen, Margaret, and

Shakespeare and the Drama

41

the sons of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. He compares the conflict to that of night and day when morning breaks, and to the sea in storm. He contrasts the peaceful life of men of humble station with that of kings. Then follow the pathetic pictures of a son who unwittingly has killed his father in battle, and of a father who has killed his son in like fashion. 5 The argument that war should only be undertaken for weighty reasons, as we have noted in the section on the "Justification of War," is echoed in Shakespeare's Hamlet together with the chivalric note that, in matters of honor, slight cause is quite sufficient to stir up bloody conflict. Prince Hamlet learns from the Captain that King Claudius has joined as an ally with the military forces of Norway in an expedition against Poland for the recovery of a piece of land not worth five ducats. Curiously like the military writers of the day, Hamlet blames luxurious peace for the evil enterprise: This is th'imposthume of much wealth and peace, That inward breaks and shows no cause without Why the man dies. {IV. iv. 27-29) Ambition, he declares, has puffed up the "delicate and tender prince" who leads the host Exposing what is mortal and unsure To all that fortune, death, and danger dare, Even for an eggshell. Rightly to be great Is not to stir without great argument, But greatly to find quarrel in a straw When honour's at the stake. (IV. iv. 51-56) The Prince is shamed into action by the picture of the soldiery fulfilling their death-dealing duty even though the cause for which they fight is nil. In our analysis of military books we noted the argument that luxurious peace also breeds internal decay and lures foreign powers to aggression, while the country that engages in wars is prone to be

42

Shakespeare and the Drama

well-trained in military matters, well-ordered and unified at home, and secure from rebellion. This thought is reflected in the advice which Shakespeare's dying King Henry IV gives to his son. Hal is to engage giddy minds with foreign broils so that they will not inquire too closely into his title: I . . . had a purpose now To lead out many to the Holy Land Lest rest and lying still might make them look Too near unto my state. Therefore, my Harry, Be it thy course to busy giddy minds With foreign quarrels, that action, hence-borne out, May waste the memory of the former days. (IV. v. 210-16) The theologian may be concerned with an explanation of why, in fact, victory may not always come to those whose cause seems just; he may point out that apparent victory may be veiled defeat, or apparent defeat veiled victory, or that the cause which appears superficially the better may be the worse, and in short, that the ways of God are not always clear to man; but the Elizabethan dramatist is apt to accept without much question the belief that God favors the victor. Accordingly, "just wars" are prone to be victorious on the stage. Shakespeare's Henry IV confidently declares: "God befriend us as our cause is just." 6 So, too, the good King Henry V of Shakespeare's plays is most careful to confer with scholars and divines to make sure his "cause is just" before he defies the French. 7 In The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth, the King encourages his men before battle by assuring them of the justice of his cause.8 Again, in The Raigne of King Edward the Third, the French king, John, argues the justice of his cause before his men and seeks to portray Edward as a tyrant not fit for rule. But the effectiveness of his argument is vitiated by the lines which precede it in the play, and in which the people concede the justice of the English cause. As the French citizens flee before the approaching English, One says:

Shakespeare and the Drama

43

Be like you then dispaire of ill successe, And thinke your Country will be subjugate. Three. We cannot tell, tis good to feare the worst. One. Yet rather fight, then like unnaturall sonnes, For sake your loving parents in distresse. Two. Tush they that have already taken armes, Are manie fearefull millions in rcspect Of that small handfull of our enimies: But tis a rightfull quarrell must prevaile, Edward is sonne unto our late kings sister, Where John Valoys, is three degrees removed.9 The Battle of Alcazar presents further interesting evidence of the dramatists' concept of victory in just wars. The situation is peculiar in two respects. In the first place, the battle was fought chiefly between pagan forces; in the second place, the sympathy of England was with the Portuguese king, Sebastian, who fought as an ally on the losing side, the side which appeared to be in the wrong. The dramatist presents Sebestian as sympathetically as he can, but he does not weaken the dramatic justice of his ultimate defeat and death. Though the classic Pantheon appears in the play, it functions entirely in accord with the Christian doctrine of God's support of the just cause. The Presenter declares that the usurping Moor Triumphs in his ambitious tyrannic, Till Nemisis high mistres of revenge, That with her scourge keepes all the world in awe, With thundering drums awakes the God of warre, And calls the furies from Avernus crags, To range and rage, and vengeance to inflict Vengeance on this accursed Moore for sinne.10 (I. 48-54) Again, at the opening of the second act, the Presenter places the avenging Furies and Nemesis before the audience to declare how

44

Shakespeare and the Drama

justice will win out. 1 1 H e is unsparing in his accusations against the Moor, but he is careful to show Sebastian in no unpleasant light: In fatall hours ariv'd this peerelesse prince, T o loose his life, his life and many lives Of lustie men, curagious Portugals, Drawen by ambitious golden lookes, Let fame of him no wrongfull censure sound, Honour was object of his thoughtes, ambition was his ground.12 {IV. 1068-73) Honor and ambition, the two magnets that draw on Sebastian in the play, are, of course, no true justification for war, and he meets a sad but just end. In contrast to this unholy alliance between the Portuguese and the Moor, is the alliance between the forces of Abdilmelec, contender for the throne, and of Amurath. This alliance suggests the justice with which one king may interfere with the affairs in another country to establish justice, remove an usurping tyrant and gratefully support a friend. Bassa, the leader of Amurath's forces, declares that they are not come as mere mercenaries on the command of Amurath, but out of gratitude to Abdilmelec And to performe in view of all the world The true office of right and roialtie, T o see thee in thy kingly chaire inthronde.

(/.

97-99)

Sure of the justice of his cause, Abdilmelec seeks to instill confidence into his soldiers by declaring his claims and reminding them that victory goes to the just. 1 3 T h e Moor, on the other hand, alike treacherous in the play to his country and his allies, depends on his wealth for victory, declaring that "gold is the glue, sinewes, and strength of war."

14

T h e subject of unity and preparedness receives considerable dramatic treatment. In The

Raigne

of King

Edward

the Third,

the

Duke of Lorraine reports to King John of France that Edward's forces are strong and that they "flocke as willingly to warre,/ As if

Shakespeare and the Drama

45

unto a tryumph they were led." Charles of Normandy, John's son, is surprised at this report of English unity and declares: England was wont to harbour malcontents, Blood thirsty, and seditious Catelynes, Spend thrifts, and such as gape for nothing else, But changing and alteration of the state, And is it possible, That they are now so loyall in them selves? Lo[rraine\. All but the Scot, who sollemnly protests . . . Never to sheath his Sword, or take a truce. King John is quick to seize upon this flaw in English unity, the enemy's vulnerable spot: "Ah, thats the anchredge of some better hope." 1 5 The first Shakespearean lines regarding unity that come to mind are, of course, the closing prophetic speech of Bastard Philip in King John: This England never did, nor never shall, Lie at the proud feet of a conqueror But when it first did help to wound itself. (V. vii.

112-14)

And the admonition of the Chorus at the beginning of Act II of King Henry the Fifth is again addressed not to the past, but to the living: O England: model to thy inward greatness, Like little body with a mighty heart, What mightst thou do that honour would thee do, Were all thy children kind and natural! (//. 16-19) Would not an English audience in the last decade of the sixteenth century have been forced by these lines to think of the recent disaffection of some of the pro-Spanish Catholic group? Would they not have been forced to think of England's loss of Calais at the end of Queen Mary's reign by the following lines of the Messenger in / Henry VI?

46

Shakespeare and the

Drama

Exeter. How were they [French towns] lost? What treachery was us'd? Messenger. No treachery, but want of men and money. Amongst the soldiers this is muttered, That here you maintain several factions, And whilst a field should be dispatch'd and fought, You are disputing of your generals. One would have ling'ring wars, with little cost; Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings; A third thinks, without expense at all, By guileful fair words peace may be obtain'd. Awake, awake, English nobility!16 (/. i. 68-j8) The advice on preparedness which the Dauphin Henry V is like a page torn from a military manual:

gives in

It is most meet we arm us 'gainst the foe; For peace itself should not so dull a kingdom (Though war nor no known quarrel were in question) But that defences, musters, preparations Should be maintain'd, assembled, and collected, As were a war in expectation. Therefore I say 'tis meet we all go forth To view the sick and feeble parts of France: And let us do it with no show of fear— No, with no more than if we heard that England Were busied with a Whitsun morris dance. (//. iv. 15-25) Though he has a low opinion of the English king, the Dauphin readily concedes that this opinion has no bearing on the urgency of preparedness: In cases of defence 'tis best to weigh The enemy more mighty than he seems. So the proportions of defence are fill'd; Which of a weak and niggardly projection Doth, like a miser, spoil his coat with scanting A little cloth.17 (II. iv. 43-48)

Shakespeare

and the Drama

T h e whole play, A Larum for London,

47

is a cry to England to take

warning from the fall of Antwerp, to leave sin and the search for pleasure, to be alert in military discipline and order, and to be prepared for all eventualities lest the commonwealth, flabby with idleness, lure aggression. Danila pictures the citizens of Antwerp as effeminate, cowardly, untrained in arms, and without military discipline, organization, or leadership. H e draws a poetic and effective picture of the city as a beautiful woman tempting men to spoil her. 1 8 In 1579, Geoffry Gates warned England that no state is safe, however isolated it may be by the ocean. When E d w a r d III marries the L a d y Grey, in Shakespeare's III Henry

VI, though he has sent

Warwick to France to arrange for his politic marriage to Bona, sister of the French queen, his brothers and the Marquis of Montague chide him for neglecting the safety which England would enjoy through such an alliance with France. L o r d Hastings, a kinsman of Lady Grey, takes up the defense of the King's action: 'Tis better using France than trusting France, Let us be back'd with God, and with the seas, Which he hath giv'n for fence impregnable, And with their helps only defend ourselves. In them and in ourselves our safety lies. (IV. i.

42-46)

Soon, however, it becomes clear that when England is not unified, her geographic isolation stands her in little stead as defense against invasion. Within the same scene in which Lord Hastings supports the action of the K i n g , a Post from France arrives and brings news of the threatening invasion of Lewis of France; within the same act, these forces, allied with some English soldiers, deprive E d w a r d of his crown. Where England is represented as being united, the drama presents her as invincible and supports the contention by reference to her history and her glorious military heritage. England was little daunted by Vegetius* theory of the malign influence of the cold and wet climate of the North on the martial

48

Shakespeare and the

Drama

effectiveness of a nation. T h o u g h Thomas Proctor, in the preface to his Of the Knowledge and Conducte of Warres, enlarges on the influence of climate on the people of various countries, he is moved by patriotic zeal to argue, Vegetius notwithstanding, that England is most fortunate, being under a temperate climate and in a fertile land. If her false sense of security and her preoccupation with trifles (fancy foods, elaborate architecture, fine clothes) were to give way to military discipline and the will to devote herself to serious matters she would excel other nations in martial glory and renowned conquests. 1 9 Robert Barret places little value on the climate theory. T h e Captain of his dialogue points out that the English are equal to all other nations in strength, valor, and courage. Good soldiers, he maintains, can be produced in any country and climate. 20 Shakespeare's Constable of France, stirred by the victories of H e n r y V, especially at Harfleur, speaks pure Vegetius: Dieu de bataillesl whence have they [the English] this metde? Is not their climate foggy, raw, and dull, On whom, as in despite, the sun looks pale, Killing their fruit with frowns? Can sodden water, A drench for sur-rein'd jades, their barley broth, Decoct their cold blood to such valiant heat ? And shall our quick blood, spirited with wine, Seem frosty? O, for honour of our land, Let us not hang like roping icicles Upon our houses' thatch, whiles a more frosty people Sweat drops of gallant youth in our rich fields!21 (///. v. 15-35) T h e glorification of England's military history in the drama is sufficiently obvious to require no extended demonstration. T h e opening speech of the Queen Mother in George Peek's The Famous Chronicle History of King Edward the First may serve as an example : Illustrious England, ancient seat of Kings, Whose chivalry hath royaliz'd thy fame,

Shakespeare and the Drama

49

That sounding bravely through terrestrial vale, Proclaiming conquests, spoils, and victories, Rings glorious echoes through the farthest world! What warlike nation, train'd in feats of arms, What barbarous people, stubborn, or untam'd What climate under the meridian signs, Or frozen zone under his brumal stage, Erst have not quak'd and trembled at the name Of Britian, and her mighty conquerors? Her neighbour realms of Scotland, Denmark, France, Aw'd with her deeds, and jealous of her arms Have begg'd defensive and offensive leagues. Thus Europe, rich and mighty in her kings, Hath fear'd brave England, dreadful in her kings.22 With such a military heritage, with good leadership and a just cause, the English, we have seen, are presented as flocking to the standards of Edward III as to a triumph.23 Where such popular support for an expedition was found in England, financing the army should not have proved difficult. In practice, of course, the difficulties were real enough. King John's methods of raising funds by taxation and confiscation of church properties were sufficiently familiar to Henry VIII. 24 We have already noted that the Church was not held exempt from contributing to the expense of national defense.25 Additional revenues for military purposes were acquired by farming the commonwealth and by the assessment of special taxes on the rich.26 That the tendency of unpaid troops to revolt continued in the sixteenth century is amply borne out by the military works considered above and by the history of the wars of the period.27 One of the charges brought by the Duke of York against Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, in II Henry VI is that he misappropriated funds levied for the pay of the English soldiers in France during his protectorship and thus brought about unrest in the garrison towns. An interesting picture of financing wars is given in Anthony Munday's The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington. During

50

Shakespeare and the Drama

the absence of his brother, K i n g Richard, in the Holy Wars, John usurps the crown of England. When Richard, who has been imprisoned in Austria, sends the Earl of Leicester to John to secure ransom money, John demurrs. Not eager for the return of his brother, he rationalizes his attitude in the following lines: Richard is a king, In Cyprus, Aeon, Actes, and rich Palestine: T o get those kingdomes England lent him men, And many a million of her substance spent, The very entrals of her wombe was rent. No plough but paid a share, no needy hand, But from his poore estate of penurie, Unto this voyage offered more than mites, And more, poore soules, than they had might to spare: Yet were they joyfull. For still flying newes, And lying I perceive them now to be, Came of King Richards glorious victories, His conquest of the Souldans, and such tales, As blewe them up with hope, when he returned, He would have scattered gold about the streetes.-3 T h e soldier, Leicester, quickly points out that not profit, but honor was the aim of Richard, nor were the contributions of the people w h o zealously supported his mission extorted. At last Leicester blurts out: Holy God helpe mee, souldiers come away: This carpet knight John sits carping at our scarres, And jeasts at those most glorious well fought warrcs. 20 T h e purported zealousness of the people of England to pay taxes for the support of this war was unusual. More common was public unwillingness to support national military endeavor, as the authors of military works constantly complain and as E d w a r d Hall makes clear in describing public opposition to the assessments in the thirteenth year of Henry's reign:

Shakespeare and the Drama

51

Also this tyme commission was gcvcn throughout the realme for generall musters to be had, to know what power might be made within the same, and also men sworne of what substaunce and landes thei wer of. And the Cardinal advertised of the same: not without grudging of the people, and marveilyng why thei should be sworne for their awne goodes.30 W h e n , in the following year, Henry sent to London to borrow money for his French war, to the delight of the poor most pressure to supply funds was exerted on the wealthy. 31 But in the nineteenth year of his reign, when Henry supported the French in an attempt to get the Emperor to release their captive king, many Englishmen grumbled and said: Alas, so much mony spent out of the realme, and of this charge the realme shall not be one peny the better, the kyng hath had of us a loane and that is not payde, and the great subsedie was graunted to make the kyng riche and now is that money to helpe our old enemies and the Pope which never shall do us good, this the people spake and much worse.32 In this instance, to be sure, many of the English were not in sympathy with the cause which King Henry espoused. T h e characteristics of the ideal soldier-king or soldier-prince serving as general received extended treatment in the military works, though usually not distinct from the treatment of the qualities in an ideal general appointed by the ruler. An appointed general differed chiefly in that he owed his responsibility and loyalty to his king, whereas the king was held to be responsible directly to God. As we have already noted, according to the militarists the same qualities in an officer which made for excellence on the field of battle also made for excellence in civil rule. So Geoffry Gates declares that "This is generally to be noted in the warlike Princess: . . . that as they exceede in militare prowesse and worthinesse, so doe they excell in wisedome and all noblenesse of hart." 3 3 Furthermore, the highest function of the king was frequently held to be that of commander-in-chief of the military strength of the

52

Shakespeare and the Drama

nation. Barnabe Rich justifies the dedication of his The Fruites of Long Experience (1604) to the young Prince Henry by declaring that the subject . . . the affaires of warre, [is] a knowledge behovefull for the greatest Monarch, when a K i n g is not so much renowned for his crowne, as for his courage and skill in the knowledge of armes. For although all the giftes of Fortune are to be despised in respect of learning, yet in a Prince, there is nothing so glorious as to be called a great Captaine, or a worthy souldier."

That Rich had high respect for learning is clear from this quotation and from many other comments in his works, but he regarded learning of chief value for the prince as a prerequisite to martial excellence. So, too, William Blandy urged that "it behoveth a Generall to be a noble Gentleman, trayned up in those sciences, through the knowledge whereof, he shall sooner attayne that perfection, which in a Generall is needful." 3 8 A typical description of the ideal general is that by Rich in his Pathway to Military Practise. He begins by pointing out that the general must be God-fearing and that his life must be an example to his soldiers. He then delineates his character in more detail: H e must be magnanimious, curteous, gratious, easie to be spoken with, constant in his counsayles, quicke in his executions, and secreete in his determinationes, that his internes may be kept close. . . . Mercy and Justice in a Generall, be two precious ornamentes, aswell to winne the loove of his owne people, as to drawe the hartes of his very enemies. . . . There is no one thing more requisit in a General, then a francke and liberall minde . . . preferring the safety of his owne people before the killing of his enemies. 38

More vivid is this ideal in the portrayal by Shakespeare of the reformed Hal. The Prince is depicted both in his own words and actions and in the comment of other characters. In / Henry IV, even his enemy, Vernon, is forced to pay tribute to Hal's soldierly bearing, appearance, and horsemanship:

Shakespeare and the Drama

53

I saw young Harry with his beaver on, His cushes on his thighs, gallantly arm'd, Rise from the ground like feathered Mercury, And vaulted with such ease into his seat As if an Angel dropp'd down from the clouds To turn and wind a fiery Pegasus And witch the world with noble horsemanship.

(IV. i. 104-10)

In Henry V, the Archbishop of Canterbury describes his young king and praises his scholarly knowledge of religion, his statesmanlike knowledge of the problems of the commonwealth, and List his discourse of war, and you shall hear A fearful battle rend'red you in music; Turn him to any cause of policy, The Gordian knot of it he will unloose, Familiar as his garter; that, when he speaks, The air, a charter'd libertine, is still, And the mute wonder lurketh in men's ears To steal his sweet and honey'd sentences; So that the art and practic part of life Must be the mistress to this theoric. (/. /. 4}~S2) Combined with his intellectual and oratorical brilliancc, the paragon of men has deep and simple piety and humility that move him to prayer when he is weighed down by a full consciousness of the responsibilities of his office and of the graveness of the battle in which he is about to engage. The heinousness of the method by which his father bereft the Lord's anointed of his crown and placed it on his own head and, in succession, on that of his son, troubles the young King who has high respect for the office which he now fills.37 But though he is humble before God, Henry V is unafraid and full of noble ambition for honor. When Westmoreland wishes that his small and exhausted army were augmented, Henry quickly teaches him with fiery bravery to withdraw that futile wish. 38 The good will between Hal and his men is manifested again and

54

Shakespeare and the Drama

again in Henry V. Noble and ignoble alike are warm in their praise of him; nor is he aloof from them. He visits the soldiers in the camp, as military books recommend that he' should, and with care considers their personal problems, turning their fears to Christian resolution in the face of duty. 39 He is easily accessible to them and mindful of the military precept that the good prince in battle will show his men, "that he wyll lyve and dye wyth them that day, and that besydes theyre perpetuall honor, he wyl never forget to honnour and rewarde them." 4 0 Sharing the dangers and hardships of his men and vaunting that he will not be ransomed, Henry V is drawn ever closer to them. His high respect for military valor brings him on a plane with the lowest of his men who do not flinch in their duty, and it causes him to call them his brothers. 41 Though of a modest nature, he has the pride in his army and people which every good general and statesman is supposed to have. 42 The chivalry of Hal is frequently manifested. His frank admiration of Hotspur and of Douglas, though they are his enemies, urges him in the first instance to challenge the heady Scotsman to single combat, and in the second, to release the captive Douglas. 43 In contrast to the noble Henry stands the wordy Dauphin whose praises of his horse weary even his own captains. 44 Besides the Shakespearian soldier-prince, one readily calls to mind other like portraits in Elizabethan drama. There is, for example, the Henry V of The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth. Here, too, Henry is delineated as an ideal general. He is careful to secure accurate information as to the size of the oncoming French host, after he has taken Harfleur, so that he may know how to appoint his army. When York informs him of the hard lot of his soldiers, many being sick and diseased and even dying of hunger, he quickly takes measures to secure supplies by money or sword, for "the lawe of Armes allow [sic] no lesse." 4S Regrettably clumsy is the line with which he first responds to York's complaint: "And why did you not tell me of it before?" Had he been as closely in touch with his soldiers

Shakespeare and the Drama

55

as was Shakespeare's Henry, he would, perhaps, not have needed to await the report of York. But aside from this inept line, the portrait is sufficiently flattering. Like Shakespeare's Henry V, the General refuses the Herald's mocking proffer of ransom for himself. 46 He encourages his men by showing them the justice of their cause. He assigns proper leaders to his "battles" and carefully plans his strategy. There are three parts to it: first, to give the enemy the impression that his army is larger and better equipped than it really is; second, to make up for the shortage of pikes by the use of pointed stakes—a means to slow down the career of onrushing cavalry and enable his shot to do greater damage; third, to control fire power. 47 Each of these "devices" is just such a one as the books on "policy" would have found praiseworthy. The first strategem, indeed, was often recommended for it served to overcome the military advantage which confidence in mere numbers gives an army. As a result of Henry's leadership, the esprit de corps of the English army, despite the odds against it, is high. Oxford and the Duke of York strive for the dangerous honor of leading the "avaunt guard," and the King is able to praise the spirit of his forces.48 Robert Greene's picture of the English King in his Scottish History of James the Fourth is another example of the type approved by martial writers. The portrait is tinted with chivalry and romance. The motivation of the play, in large part, is propaganda for the union of England and Scotland for These nations if they joyne What Monarch, with his leigemen, in this world, Dare but encounter you in open fielde? 40 The motivation for action is James's infidelity to and outrageous treatment of his wife, Dorothea, daughter of the English King. This noble monarch invades Scotland in the manner of a romantic hero storming the villain's castle to rescue or avenge a fair lady. His chivalry is attested by his challenge of James to single combat and

56

Shakespeare and the Drama

his unwillingness to take vengeance on those that will not resist him. 5 0 In contrast to these martial princes, one calls to mind the lines of young Mortimer, who twits the King of Christopher Marlowe's Edward II: When wert thou in the field with banner spread? But once: and then, thy soldiers march'd like players, With garish robes, not armor; and thyself, Bedaub'd with gold, rode laughing at the rest, Nodding and shaking of thy spangled crest, Where women's favors hung like labels down.51 Shakespeare's concept of the captain is distinct in his portrayal of eight characters: the English, the Irish, the Scottish and the Welsh captains of Henry V, the Hotspur of the Henry IV plays, Talbot, Falstaf? and Parolles. 62 Hotspur, like Hal, is described both by his actions and conversation, and by the comments of other characters in the plays. Though the partial judgment of Lady Percy describes him as the image of the perfect soldier, he has three defects when compared with Hal, to whose portrait he serves as a foil. He is rash, has an ungovernable temper, and "speaks thick." The last defect, like the touching eyebrows of the English Cressida, serve but to endear him to those who love him; nevertheless it deprives him of that quality of oratory which the military writers insist on as essential to a commander. Barnabe Rich declared that "good perswasion, and to know howe to speake wel is a most necessary vertue both in Generall, Officer and Captaine" in order to encourage soldiers, to maintain discipline, and to prevail over the enemy, for "many times it more prevaileth to bringe the enemy to composition and agreement, then their squadrons and troupes were able to winne by force." 53 The tradition that the soldier has no words to throw away, that he is a man of action, not of words, goes back at least to the days of the old Romans and may account for the presentation of Hotspur as

Shakespeare and the Drama

57

64

averse to much talk. H e is, however, sufficiently voluble, as we shall note below, when he gets angry. I do not believe that an interpretation of Hotspur as a taciturn soldier takes sufficient account of his "thick speech," his speaking "low and tardily," a real hindrance to oratory. Others of Shakespeare's generals are prone to give more or less elaborate talks to their forces before battle, in the traditional vein. Hotspur's terse lines suggest an inability rather than an unwillingness to orate. 6 5 Lady Percy, in II Henry IV, is moved to describe her dead husband as she seeks to dissuade his father, Northumberland, from joining with the rebel forces under the Marshal T h o m a s Mowbray and the Archbishop of York: And speaking thick (which Nature made his blemish) Became the accents of the valiant; For those that could speak low and tardily Would turn their own perfection to abuse To seem like him. (II. iii. 24-48) H i s rashness is discussed with the acumen of a military scholar by Lord Bardolph who declares in this play, that Hotspur lin'd himself with hope, Eating the air on promise of supply, Flatt'ring himself in project of a power Much smaller than the smallest of his thoughts, And so, with great imagination, Proper to madmen, led his powers to death And, winking, leapt into destruction. Hast[ings], But, by your leave, it never yet did hurt To lay down likelihoods and forms of hope. L. Bard. Yes, in this present quality of war, Indeed, the instant action. A cause on foot Lives so in hope as in an early spring We see th'appearing buds, which to prove fruit Hope gives not so much warrant as despair

58

Shakespeare and the Drama That frosts will bite them. When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the erection, Which if we find outweighs ability, What do we then but draw anew the model In fewer offices, or at least desist To build at all ? Much more, in this great work— Whis is (almost) to pluck a kingdom down And set another up—should we survey The plot of situation and the model, Consent upon a sure foundation, Question surveyors, know our own estate, How able such a work to undergo, To weigh against his opposite; or else We fortify in paper and in figures, Using the names of men instead of men, Like one that draws the model of a house Beyond his power to build it, who (half through) Gives o'er, and leaves his part-created cost A naked subject to the weeping clouds And waste for churlish winter's tyranny. (I. iii. 27-62)

Evidence of Hotspur's ungovernable temper and further evidence of his rashness abound in I Henry IV. On his first appearance in the play, Percy is busy making excuses to the King for having lost his temper in speaking to K i n g Henry's emissary "indirectly" (i.e., wrongfully). 5 6 When the King dismisses him, Northumberland can scarce restrain the fiery lad from returning to the royal presence to have it out with him and ease his heart "albeit I make a hazzard of my head." 5 7 Northumberland declares that he is "drunk with choler." When Northumberland and Worcester cannot persuade him to listen to reason, Northumberland reproves him and says: Why, what a wasp-stung and impatient fool Art thou to break into this woman's mood, Tying thine ear to no tongue but thine own!

(/. iii. 236-38)

Shakespeare and the Drama

59

Again, at the risk of destroying the rebel alliance, Hotspur indulges himself in mocking Glendower. At last, Worcester reproves him: In faith, my lord, you are too wilful-blame, You must needs learn, lord, to amend this fault. Though sometimes it show greatness, courage, blood— And that's the dearest grace it renders you— Yet oftentimes it doth present harsh rage, Defect of manners, want of government, Pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain; The least of which haunting a nobleman Loseth men's hearts, and leaves behind a stain Upon the beauty of all parts besides, Beguiling them of commendation. (III. i. ijj-89) Even Lady Percy declares in an amorous mood: " Y o u are altogether govern'd by humours."

58

It is no slight offense for a captain

to forget his maps, but the heady Hotspur comes to conference without them. 5 9 One of the most important decisions a military commander can make is the setting of the time of battle, but Worcester and Vernon are hard put to it to restrain Hotspur from what proves to be ill-advised haste. 6 0 These instances may suffice to demonstrate the shortcomings of Hotspur as a military commander. His good qualities need little demonstration. He is fearless, loyal to his friends, generous, a good fighter, honest though blunt, endowed with humor, respectful of valor. Though he may not have the gift of oratory, Shakespeare endows him with leadership, as may be noted in his brief talk to his forces before the fateful battle: Arm, arm with speed! and, fellows, soldiers, friends, Better consider what you have to do Than I, that have not well the gift of tongue, Can lift your blood up with persuasion. ( V. it. 76-79)

60

Shakespeare and the Drama

We turn now to the English, the Irish, the Scottish and the Welsh captains of Henry V. In this play, besides other matters, Shakespeare portrays the absurdities of contestants in the conflict between old and new methods of warfare waged among soldiers and martial theorists in England during the late sixteenth century. 61 The conservatives insisted on the continued importance of the classic military regimen despite innovations in the methods of warfare resulting from the use of firearms; the modernists minimized the importance of classical training and stressed the need of a study of new arms and tactics. Absurd are extremists: on the one hand were those who could see no good at all in the new weapons and techniques; on the other were those who—ignorant of the classics—would see no value in ought that practice and experience had taught their military predecessors. In the dedication of the Stratioticus, Thomas Digges, though he was no ultra-conservative, castigated the cocksure "ignorant upstarts" who would discard completely a study of classic militarism and who declared "that the time was changed, that wars were altered, and the fury of ordnance such, as all those Roman orders were mere toys not once to be talked of in these our days." With indignant sarcasm Digges exclaims: As though the Heavens and Elementes had chaunged their Natures, or Men and Weapons so altered as no humane reason might attaine to consider the difference. Or as though the Romane orders for the field (a very few excepted) were not more convenient, more serviceable and more Invincible, (all alterations considered) even in these our dayes, than they were in the age wherein they were used and practized.82 Arguments of this nature continued to appear in the military books and pamphlets which poured from the press as the century drew to its close. Even as late as 1604, we read in Barnabe Rich's The Fruits of Long Experience: The auncient orders and manners left unto us by the great Captaines of former ages arc omitted, sometimes by corruptions, sometimes by

Shakespeare and the Drama

61

nccessitic, and many times innovated by Captaines, who to shewe themselves as wise as womens taylors, can devise everie day a new fashion. This order that we speak of, is to be observed in the field, in the Towne, in the Campe, in marching, in fighting, in charging, in retyring.83 Though Sir Roger Williams favored the "new order" and did not underestimate the innovations it brought, he still showed considerable respect for the ancient order: Although the ground of auncient discipline is the most worthiest and the most famous; notwithstanding, by reason of Fortifications, Stratagems, Ingins, arming, with Munition, the discipline is greadie altered; the which we must follow and be directed as it is now: otherwise we shall repent it too late. 64 Shakespeare, I believe, represents the absurdly extreme modernist in Captain Macmorris. But the Welsh Captain Fluellen, though absurd in some respects, is not presented as blindly opposed to all innovation. His absurdity stems not from his disapproval of modern methods of warfare, not from his knowledge of Roman military theory, but from his vainglorious parading of this knowledge often at the cost of relevance, from his crotchety nature, and from his distortions of the language. Despite the comedy value of his absurdities, Fluellen appears in the play as a capable, respected, good-natured officer. H e is highly esteemed by Captains Jamy and Gower, by the Duke of Exeter, and by the King. When Hal overhears Fluellen reproving Captain Gower on classic grounds for speaking too loudly in camp at night, the ruler is moved to praise the doughty exponent of military order and discipline, for "There is much care and valour in this Welshman." T h e crude prank Hal is permitted to play at Fluellen's expense does not suggest lack of respect for the valiant Captain, but rather the intimacy of Harry with his soldiers and officers. T h e good-natured Fluellen, though hot as gunpowder and quick to return an injury when he is touched with choler, not only joins in the fun at his

62

Shakespeare and the Drama

expense, but presses the blunt and hearty soldier Williams, by whom he has been buffeted as a result of the K i n g ' s jest, to accept a gift of twelve pence. T h e sober English Captain G o w e r takes the reproof of his comrade with good grace and concedes the validity of Fluellen's argument. G o w e r does not underestimate the sturdy qualities of the Captain, and when Pistol, for his insolence, has received a drubbing from the Welshman, the English officer points the lesson of Pistol's punishment: "Henceforth let a Welsh correction teach you a good English condition." That Captain Macmorris has little love for Fluellen is not to the Welshman's discredit, for Macmorris is not represented as a capable, but as a decidedly incompetent officer, however valiant he may be. Fluellen refers to him as "an ass" who is completely uninformed of the true (i.e., the R o m a n ) discipline of war. But the incompetence of Macmorris is demonstrated not only by the comments of Fluellen, who might be regarded as prejudiced, but also by his own behavior, by the palpable blunderings of his mining operations, and by his stubborn unwillingness to admit his error and accept the sanity of the retreat order. T h e Irish captain is angry that the retreat has been sounded before his "pioneers" (military engineers) could dig the mines far enough under the enemy fortifications to be effective. In another hour, he declares, he would have reached his objective: By Chrish, la, tish ill done! the work ish give over, the trompet sound the retreat. By my hand I swear, and my father's soul, the work ish ill done! It ish give over. I would have blowed up the town so Chrish save me la! in an hour. O, tish ill done! tish ill done! By my hand, tish ill done. (III. ii. 93-99) Macmorris would not, of course, have blown up the whole town; all he would have done was breach Harfleur's defenses. T h e D u k e of Gloucester, who was in charge of siege operations, may have been ruled by the valiant gentleman in many things, as Captain

Shakespeare and the Drama

63

out,85

Gower points but he certainly was too good a soldier to permit the continuation of the headstrong Irishman's mining operations over a keg of French powder. The Irish captain is hot, miserable, confused, and eager to get away from Captains Fluellen and Jamy. He is quick to take umbrage when Fluellen tauntingly tries to involve him in the discussion of a subject of which he is ignorant—the Roman discipline of war. He shows himself to be a man of action, of confused and undisciplined action, but of action rather than of words as he unjustly implies are Fluellen and Jamy. 66 T o be sure, Fluellen rides his hobby—classical military theory— hard, as Professor George L. Kittredge suggests, and this "humour" is a comic absurdity. But Professor Kittredge overstates his case, in my opinion, when he declares that "Fluellen's idea is that only the Romans knew anything about military science. The subject is a mere fad (or 'humour') with him: he is not a military antiquarian." 07 Fluellen pays highest respect to Roman military science, but he is eloquent in his praise of the comrades he respects—Jamy, Gower, the Duke of Exeter. These also have knowledge of and respect for classical military science and earn the praise of Fluellen accordingly. Surely the study of it is not a "mere fad" with all of them; nor is there evidence in the play that Fluellen is superficial in studying it, is not a real military "antiquarian." 8 8 If Fluellen is to represent an able militarist in the play, it is unlikely that his pronouncements on martial subjects are to be regarded as absurd, however amusing may be their expression in the Welshman's broken English. Of one such pronouncement the worthy Captain delivers himself to Gower, explaining why he does not wish to meet the Duke of Gloucester at the mines. He has not yet learned that the able Gloucester has already put a stop to this operation: Tell you the Duke, it is not so good to come to the mines; for look you, the mines is not according to the disciplines of the war. The concavities

64

Shakespeare and the Drama

of it is not sufficient; for look you, th'athversary, you may discuss unto the Duke, look you, is digt himself four yard under the countermines: by Cheshu, I think 'a will plow up all, if there is no better directions. (III. ii. 61-68) Because of the broken English employed in this passage, its true meaning has, I believe, been obscured to many readers and critics. Professor Henry N. Hudson interpolates: "the enemy the Frenchman] has digged four yards under the countermines." 69 In other words, the French mined the English camp, the English countermined the French mines, and the French in turn countermined the English countermines. This, indeed, is the interpretation which Charles Knight gives the passage. "But why not take Fluellen literally?" he asks. "Why not countermines under countermines? and then the enemy 'will plow up a l l . ' " 7 0 Such mining operations would have merited Fluellen's sharpest criticism of both sides for then the French blundered in not making the original mines sufficiently deep, the English in their countermining blundered by not digging their countermines of sufficient depth to prevent their being undermined in turn by the French. It seems probable, however, that the English rather than the French dug the original mines, for the French were in a citadel whose walls had to be breached or scaled by the enemy's offensive, whereas the English were in an open field camp where mining would have been less effective. Doctor Samuel Johnson's comment that "Fluellen means, that the enemy had digged himself countermines four yards under the mines" 7 1 is much more plausible and conforms more nearly with the account of the siege of Harfleur in Holinshed's Chronicles, the historical source Shakespeare followed closely in his account of Henry's reign. Here we learn that the Duke of Gloucester, who had charge of siege operations, had ordered three mines to be dug, but the French "somewhat disappointed the Englishmen, and came to fight with them hand to hand within the mines, so that they [the English] went no further forward with that work." 7 2

Shakespeare and the Drama

65

Shakespeare anachronistically has changed the mining operations to fit his own contemporaries' use of powder in warfare. For the English mines to have been effective, it was necessary for them to be dug under the walls of the fortification of Harfleur. The charges, when ignited, were to have made an extensive breach in the wall of defense. This was Captain Macmorris's objective, not the countermining of a French mine or countermine. The countermines in the play are not on a level with the mines, as in Holinshed, but under them. In such a maneuver it would be impossible for the English and French to come to hand-to-hand fighting, for the projected mines and countermines would never meet. If the English had dug their mines deep enough, perhaps to bedrock, the French would at worst have been forced to meet them on the same level in their countermines and then depended on an uncertain dispute of the passage. But as the English mines were not sufficiently deep, the French countermines under them placed the English in hazard of being blown up. 73 T o this danger Fluellen refers when he criticizes the shallow English mines.74 T o reconcile what Doctor Johnson declares Fluellen means with what he says, we need only recall the Welshman's difficulties with the English language and his own admission that "the phrase is a little variations." 78 He confuses his tenses; he jumbles the singular number with the plural; he confuses the verb forms of having and being; he takes ungrammatical short cuts in expressing his ideas; his word-order is often unsure; his diction is marred with malapropisms.76 But for all his linguistic difficulties, we must not accuse the competent Captain of confusing such technical terms as "mine" and "countermine." Doubtless the worthy soldier perversely transposed the word order of the following sentence or omitted a necessary preposition. For "th'adversary . . . is digt himself four yard under the countermines," we must read "th'adversary . . . is digt himself the countermines four yard under [the mines]," or "th'adversary . . . is digt himself four yard under [in] the countermines."

66

Shakespeare and the Drama

T o complete the reformation of Fluellen's English in this passage, we may delete the pointless reflexive '"himself," make the noun "yard" agree with its adjective "four," employ the conventional past participle for "dig," and substitute the appropriate form of the verb "to have" for the verb "to be." In its new garb the sentence reads: The adversary has dug the countermines four yards under [the mines]. In short, though we see Fluellen as one of the group of characters Shakespeare presents light-heartedly to reflect the struggle between the military conservatives and modernists that was waged toward the end of the sixteenth century, he yet has given him personal and martial traits we must respect and admire. O f Scottish Captain Jamy and of the English Captain Gower, enough has been said. Wherever Gower appears he serves as a sober moderator.

His valor is further suggested by the hint that the King

will knight him. 7 7 As Henry V is Shakespeare's picture of an ideal king and general, so Talbot is the picture of an ideal captain. In him we find all the qualities listed in military handbooks as most befitting a military commander. H e is pious, brave and loyal, capable in strategy and mighty in the field, a loving son of his country and a loving father to his child; honoring his profession, he is honored by it. Humble before his king, yet is he proud of his nation and of the chivalric knighthood of which he is a part. His passionate hate is reserved for the enemies of England, Frenchmen and Englishmen

who,

like Fastolfe, would smirch the great name of their country with cowardice and place their own interests before those of their fatherland. H e stands as a symbol of the noblest qualities of England and falls only when her might is sapped by cowardice or disunity. His first fall occurs when he is captured by the French as a result of the cowardice of Sir John Fastolfe. Though he is treated with less courtesy by the French than the law of arms demands, he does not accept the insult of being ransomed by exchange for a man of little

Shakespeare and the Drama

67

planned.78

account, as the contemptuous French have Once more, as at the battle of Patay, so also before Rouen Sir John demonstrates his cowardice by running away before a stroke is given, but only to meet fit punishment by Talbot who strips the garter of knighthood from his leg.79 In fitting contrast to the debasement of the cowardly Captain is the earlier scene in Paris in which the young King Henry, after giving high praise to the valorous old Captain, dubs him Earl of Shrewsbury. But though the fierce Talbot is a terror to the French, he is mild in his correction of the weak, even when they prove presumptuous, as does the Countess of Auvergne when, through wiles, she seeks to entrap him as her prisoner. The chivalrous Talbot permits her to ensnare his "shadow" and exacts no punishment but the entertainment of his soldiers, whose stomachs, he declares, always serve them well. True soldier that he is, he attributes his strength not to himself but to God, his King, and his men, "his substance, sinews, arms, and strength." In William Blandy's dialogue, The Castle, or Picture of Pollicy, the interlocutor, Gates, enumerates the qualities of an ideal martial officer and stresses in particular that he must not be a greedy boaster: It standeth gready on him to avoyd the name of a vaunter which is seene in this, that he does not vindicate to himselfe alone the prayse of good successe: but do impute the same first to God. Secondly to his Captaynes. Thirdly to his Souldiars.80 Talbot has none of that pride that blinds men to the virtues of others. His sincere sorrow and respect before the corpse of Salisbury are a tribute to him himself. His trust is in the justice of his cause and in the support of the Lord of Hosts. And so, before Orleans, he is confident of success, for the French consort with devils, but "God is our fortress, in whose conquering name/ Let us resolve to scale their flinty bulwarks." 8 1 There is no need further to trace in feeble outlines Shakespeare's

68

Shakespeare and the Drama

vivid painting of Talbot, cxccpt to note that there is no carping here by militarist or cleric at the suicidal valor of Talbot and his son John when they refuse to flee from the French, though York and Somerset fail to send the promised reinforcements essential for English victory against the overpowering forces of the enemy.82 The biographical drama of Thomas Stukeley (or Stucley), entitled The Famous History of the Life and Death of Captain Thomas Stukeley, gives an excellent opportunity for a study of the Elizabethan concept of a typical good captain rather than of an ideal captain. His character is marked by scorn of money and marred by ambition, a fault to which the best of captains was held prone to be heir. His proud superiority to pelf, though extreme, was regarded as most befitting his profession. William Blandy declares: The onely and chiefe grace, that beautifieth the minde of a Souldiar, is the contempt of Spoyle, and refusall of riches. For the corrupt opinion of wealth and pleasures, are the enemies of vertue, the allurements not to so fond, as wicked endevors.88 Sir Roger Williams showed what harm comes from proud, ambitious, covetous leaders, but he stressed ambition above the rest for "ambition is given to men of warre, more than to anie other profession." Indeed, he asserts that, for over-reaching themselves, "if justice were executed to the uttermost, fewe great Captains should live." 8 4 In his youth, though supposed to study law, Stukeley surrounds himself with weapons and acquires the reputation of being "lewd," "very wild, a quarreller, a fighter," a "spendgood" and "prodigal." Soon after his marriage to Alderman Curtis's daughter, scorning money—"this trash, betrayer of mens souls"—he spends his wife's dowry on a long list of creditors. Meanwhile, Stukeley has been appointed a captain in the Irish wars. His lieutenant, ensign, drum and soldiers wait for him. They have nothing but praise for their generous, valiant leader who makes no spoil of his own soldiers and

Shakespeare and the Drama

69

Is not one will say unto his men "Give you assault upon the enemy," But "follow mc:" and so himself will be The foremost man that shall begin the fight.86 When his three-day-wife attempts to restrain him from the wars and warns him of the dangers that beset hasty climbers, he replies with the carefree optimism of a soldier that "he soonest loseth that despairs to win," and that if anyone survive the fray, it will be he. The scene now shifts to Ireland. Stukeley grumbles that the English wait to be attacked by the Irish instead of attacking them. Before long, he challenges the governor, Herbart, an old enemy of his, to a duel. He will not be restrained though he is reminded by the governor that it is dangerous to indulge in private quarrels when the public enemy is at hand and that it is a breach of military discipline to draw his sword in a garrison town and against his military superior. This twofold breach of military discipline is dealt with again and again in the contemporary codes of military discipline. Articles 15 and 16 of the code Leicester prepared for the wars in the Netherlands apply: 15. No man shall lift up his weapon against the Magistrate his Captain or Officer, upon paine of death. 16. No man shall quarell, brawle, or make any affray within the Campe or Toune of garrison, upon olde malice, or newe occasion whatsoever . . . upon paine of losse of life or limme, at the discretion of the Generall or Marshall.86 The duel is stayed only as the drum announces the enemy's attack. After a stage battle, the Irish are driven out. Stukeley, eager for spoil to enrich his men, still pursues them after retreat has been sounded from the town and all the other English forces have returned. Regardless of the success of his venture or the laudability of his objective, such disobedience in an officer was regarded as most reprehensible. Barnabe Rich warns of the dangers that arise from this type of self-willed heroism:

jo

Shakespeare and the Drama

It is not requisite that every private captaine, or any other, should rashly enter into attemptes, of their own heades, further then they be directed: for otherwise, they commonly conclude with unhappie ends, and many times it doth fall out, that when there is some exploit to be used, through the wilfulnes of some harebrained capteine, or any other that is more forwarde then wise, that will adventure for his owne glorie, further then his direction, it bringeth overthrow of altogether.87 Determined to teach Stukeley a lesson, the governor refuses to reopen the gates for Tom or his men. Resentful at such treatment, the Captain embarks for Spain, where he soon wins the favor of King Philip. His further adventures in the drama take him to Rome, to Portugal, and ultimately to Morocco where, at the Battle of Alcazar, he loses his life. Earlier in this chapter it was pointed out that the treatment accorded the soldier or veteran by other players within an Elizabethan drama serves usually as an index to their characters. If they treat soldiers well, they are sure to be good, if ill then bad. The clearest example of this tendency may, perhaps, be found in John Day's The Blind Beggar of Bednall Green. This play, the reader will recall, recounts how Sir Robert Westford and Young Gilbert Playnsey "frame" Momford and defraud him, and how he recovers his own in their despite. When Momford's fortune is down, his creditors at once besiege him. 88 Momford pays them off handsomely and they go off, but one man stays: Momford. Wherefore stayest thou my Friend? Oh I know thee now! Thou art not impudent, thou canst not begg, Thou art a Souldier, and thy wound-plow'd face Hath every furrow fill'd with falling tears, That arms and honour should be thus disdain'd. I have no gold to give thee, but this chain, I pray thee take it friend, thou griev'st at me, And I am griev'd thy want and wounds to see. Souldier. My silent prayer my hearts love shall express. Heaven succour you, as you help my distress.89

Shakespeare and the Drama

71

The function of this scene is, obviously, to win sympathy for Momford, and more generally for honest, virtuous, pious soldiery. Though Young Gilbert Playnsey is plighted to Elizabeth, the daughter of Momford, he has consented to marry Katherine, daughter of Sir Robert Westford. Katherine is opposed to this match, but Young Gilbert has the blessing of Sir Robert, who meanwhile connives to defraud Elizabeth of her rightful heritage. Momford, disguised as an old soldier, stands by as Elizabeth, his daughter, is being cast off by his treacherous friend, Sir Robert. She acquiesces to the wishes of Sir Robert, but before going off, turns to the old soldier: Ere I go Somewhat on this old man I will bestow Thou seem'st a maymed Souldicr, wo is me! I have a little Gold, good Father take it, And here's a Diamond do not forsake it; My Father was a Souldicr maym'd like thee, Thou in thy limbs, he by vil'd infamy. Old Stroud. Bith mass I like her, shee's a Momford right Of noble blood and the true Norfolk breed; Hold the good fellow there's one 40 pence From a poor Yeomans purse, old Stroud of Harling. Momf. I thank you Sir, I have more than 1 deserve. Sir Rob. I Sir, and more than you shall bear from hence Come Minx, what Jewell did you give this Rogue. Momf. I am a Souldicr Sir, the name of Rogue 111 fits a man of your respcct to give To a poor Gentleman, though in distress. Sir Rob. A Gentleman! and why a Gentleman Because a Souldicr? Come you desper-view. Deliver me the Jewel or I'll hang thee, Tomorrow is the Sessions, I'll make short, And shave your Gentry shorter by the neck. A Gendeman! come, come, give me the Jewel, What makes your Gentry sneaking at my Gate? 90

72

Shakespeare and the

Drama

In her misery, Elizabeth takes upon herself the care of the old soldier, the Blind Beggar of Bednall Green. Old Stroud, pictured as a sober and proud yeoman throughout the play, now takes up the defense of the soldier. Captain Westford, in contrast to Sir Robert, appears as an honest and faithful soldier throughout the play. H e has looked with disfavor on Sir Robert's forcing his daughter Katherine to marry Young Playnsey and on the cruelty perpetrated on Elizabeth. At last he takes up for Momford in earnest and is rewarded as the beggar, who now reveals his true identity, offers him his daughter in marriage. Captain Westford accepts with a flourish to martial nobility: For Momford's sake, whose honor'd deeds Are writ up with the blood of the proud French, Were she the meanest and deformed'st Creature That treads upon the bosome of the earth, Westford wo'd take, love, live and marry her.91 In conclusion, the King himself rewards and honors Momford and those who have been faithful to him. In The Famous Chronicle History of King Edward the First, by George Peele, all noble characters are depicted as generous and kind to soldiers. The play opens with a speech by the Queen Mother which is full of praise for the English military heritage. Then follows the triumphal return of Edward, ushered in with these stage directions: The trumpets sound, and enter the train, viz. his maimed soldiers with head-pieces and garlands on them, every man with his red-cross on his coat: the Ancient borne in a chair, his garland and his plumes on his head-piece, his ensign in his hand.62 After Edward has lavished considerable praise on the valor of his soldiers, he addresses them in these words: Countrymen, your limbs are lost in service of the Lord, Which is your glory and your country's fame: For limbs you shall have living, lordships, lands, And be my counsellors in war's affairs.

Shakespeare and the Drama

73

Souldiers, sit down: Nell [his queen], sit thee by my side. These be Prince Edward's pompous treasury!" Without further delay, Edward makes these promises real. T h e Queen Mother follows his example as do his brother Edmund, Gloucester, Sussex, Queen Elinor, and Sir David of Brecknock. T h e delighted King now declares: Happy is England under Edward's reign When men are had so highly in regard, That nobles strive who shall remunerate The soldiers' resolution with regard.94 The soldier is pictured in this drama as the ideal citizen: his love of liberty is a love of "perfect obedience to perfect law." Joan of Aeon, daughter of the proud and wicked Spaniard, Queen Elinor, admonishes her: Let not your honour make your manners change. The people of this land are men of war; The women courteous, mild and debonair, Laying their lives at princes' feet That govern with familiar majesty. But if their sovereigns once 'gin swell with pride, Disdaining commons' love, which is the strength And sureness of the richest commonwealth, That prince were better live a private life, Than rule with tyranny and discontent.95 Marlowe, too, in his Troublesome of Edward

the Second

Raigne

and Lamentable

Death

presents his "good" characters as kind to the

military and his "bad" characters as unsympathetic to them. Already in the opening scene of the play, Gaveston, the degenerate aesthete, shows little love for the military: Gaveston. And what are thou? Third poorman. A soldier, that hath serv'd against the Scot. Gaveston. Why there are hospitals for such as you; I have no war, and therefore, sir, be gone.

74

Shakespeare and the Drama Soldier. Farewell, and perish by a soldier's hand, That would'st reward them with an hospital.86

These words of the soldier prove prophetic. In contrast to Gaveston, Lancaster, a real soldier himself, is generous to the military. Generous, too, is Sir Thomas More, in the biographical play of that name. In the pathetic scene before his execution, More tells the Lieutenant that he was the poorest chancellor England ever had. He explains where his money went: Crutches, Master Lieutenant, and bare cloaks; For halting soldiers, and poor needy scholars Have had my gettings in the Chancery.97 (V. iii. 54-57) According to the military texts, the army was to be a moral training field. The proximity of death and the strict justice of military law and order were perfectly suited to make a worthy, Christian citizenry. We have already cited Gates's comment that there is more tolerance for infirmities in the city than on the field.98 This opinion was reflected also in the dramatic writings of the period. Shakespeare's Henry V is a stickler for military discipline despite his amicable relations with his soldiers. When Fluellen, in Henry V, reports to him that Bardolph has been executed for theft, the young King replies: We would have all such offenders so cut off. And We give express charge that in our marches through the country there be nothing compell'd from the villages, nothing taken but paid for; none of the French upbraided or abused in disdainful language. (III. vi. 113-118) In practice, however, the conduct of the soldier fell far short of such high morality. His lot was hard at best, as the petulant sentinel in / Henry VI declares: Thus are poor servitors, When others sleep upon their quiet beds, Constrain'd to watch in darkness, rain, and cold.

(II.5-7)

Shakespeare

and the Drama

75

Gambling was one of the milder vices to which the soldier turned for entertainment and revenue. Still gambling is prohibited again and again in the military texts and in the disciplinary codes which were usually issued by the general before any major engagement. The Puritanic note of François de La Noue's Politicise and Militarie Discourses, where all gaming, swearing, plundering, and consorting with loose women were firmly interdicted and attendance at morning and evening prayers made mandatory, was not alien to the English martial texts.90 Robert Barret, for example, lists desirable qualities for soldiers and then adds that they must not be given to gaming. 100 In the fourth paragraph of the disciplinary code which Robert, Earl of Leicester, prepared for the army serving in the Low Countries, we read: And seeing it well bescemeth all Christians, especially such as professe the militarie service, to passe away the time in matters requisite for their profession: And because no time can be more vainely spent, then that which is consumed in unlawfull games, besides the breeding of much contention, and quarrelles: And for that there be many allowable and commendable exercises for all sortes of men to use: Therefore, it is streightly commanded, that no private Souldiour or inferiour Officer shall frequent the playing at Dice and Cardes, nor any other unlawfull games, upon pain of two dayes imprisonment for the first time, and for after committing the like, to be further punished by the Judges discretion.101 Particularly heinous was the gambling away of the soldier's arms and furniture. William Garrard in his The Arte of Warre gives a typical code to which soldiers of all degrees must be sworn. He starts out like Leicester, with articles dealing with piety, and then turns to other vices and offences, among which he provides that "he that shall play at any game for his armor, weapons or horses, which are written upon the roll, or through his negligence shall lose them, or lend, give away, or lay them to pawne, let him die." Earlier in the book, he declares that a soldier who parts from his weapons, who loses or plays away any part of them, is worse than a coward. "Such a one,"

j6

Shakespeare and the Drama

he continues, "is to be dismissed with punishment, or made some abject Pyoner."

102

In the drama, however, soldiers are frequently presented as dicing. Sir John of Wrootham, the roguish priest in Sir John

Oldcastle,

after he has robbed King Harry (Henry V ) and is about to join in playing at dice with him and others in camp, gives evidence that he has enough money to take part in the game. Incidentally, his aside on the poverty of the soldiers is informative: Yfaith . . . dost wonder how I come by gold? I wonder rather how poore souldiers should have gold, for lie tell thee good fellow, we have every day tythes, offerings, christnings, weddings, burialls: and you poore snakes come seldome to a bootie.103 In The Famous

Victories

of Henry

the Fifth

the French soldiers

are pictured playing dice for the booty they expect to get from the conquered English. Here the playing serves also for a superstitious prognostication as none of them seems to be able to throw a winning cast when they dice for the English king. 1 0 4 An interesting reference to dicing occurs in Stukeley.

When

Vernon asks the Governor of Dundalk, Herbert, about the health of his men, the Governor replies: "There's no soldier sick/ But he that drinks, or spends his thrift at dice."

105

Other causes for illness among the soldiers are also cited in this play. As Shane O'Neale, O'Hanlon and Neale Mackener spy on Dundalk, O'Neale overhears an English soldier coughing and remarks : 'Tish some English churle in the toone That coughes, that is dree, some prood English souldior hees a dree cough, can drinke no vater, the English churle dees If he get not bread and porrage and a hose to lee in.106 An alternate scene also dwells on this subject: Mac^. Be whist, I hear one stir (One coughs

within)

Shakespeare and the Drama

77

O'Neale. Some English soldier that hath got the cough. I'll ease his grief by cutting oil his head. Mack,- These English churls die if they lack their bed And bread and beer, porridge, and powdered beef. Han. O Marafastot [an oath] shamrocks are not meat Nor bonny clabbo [curds], nor green water-cresses Nor our strong butter, nor our swell'd oatmeal And drinking water brings them to the Flixe. O'Neale. It is their niceness, silly puling fools. Mac\. There be of them can fare as hard as we And harder too; but drunkards and such like As spend their time in ale-house surfeiting And brothel-houses, quickly catch their bane.107 T h e importance of feeding an army well is recognized in the military manuals, and its special importance to the English is stressed. Count Jacopo di Porcia writes: Best it is in colde wynter, to take mete before we go to fyght. For good meate and drynke, be the nerest remedyes, to refresh us, and put a waye colde. . . . The capitayne must warely foresee that in wynter tyme he do not issue forth with hys men before they be refreshed, with hote meates and drynkes.108 Betham, the translator, was not satisfied with this general note of his author but appends the following detailed application to the English: Englysh men be not able to continue war, neither at home ne yet in forayne royalmes, without vytayles. Wherefore all capitaynes ought to provyde, that theyr souldyours may have meate and drynke ynough to fylle theyr bellye, or els they can not so fiersely and gredelye contynue warre as they dyd begynne. For Englyshmen of our nature, be not content with so lytle meate and scarce foode, as other men borne in the hye countryes be: For whych cause, theyr strength is weakened, when that they lacke feedyng, accordyng to the saying of Polidore, which sayth that none armye, never so great, is able to withstande a garrison of

78

Shakespeare and the Drama

Englyshe men at the fyrst brounte and begynnynge of theyr warres. Whych saying maye thus way be true, yf they have not suche plentie of vytayles to suffyce thyr appetyte and hungre as they had at the begynnyng. For by hungre theyr force and fiercenesse, doeth slake.109 Humphrey Barwick takes issue with the claim of Sir John Smythe that the only hindrance to effective archery is the breaking of the bow or bowstring, and declares: There arc divers other lettes, the which I have seen dyvers archers complaine of. Fyrst, for that he coulde get no war me meate, nor his three meales every daie, as his custome was to have at home, neyther his body to lye warme at night, whereby his joyntes were not in temper, so that being sodainely called upon, as the service doth often fal out: he is lyke a man that hath the Palsie, and so benommed, that before he get eyther to the fire, or to a warme bedde, he can drawe no bowe at all. 110 Hunger was, indeed, one of the hardships that the soldier had to expect. Thomas Procter urges the importance of having each soldier trained to help himself to food in times of need; though he does not recommend that the English, like the Scots, make common practice of doing their own cooking. 1 1 1 T h e need of Englishmen for good hot food and for stale beer furnished a popular subject for treatment in the drama too. In Famous

Victories

of Henry

the Fifth,

The

a French captain expresses

similar views to those cited above: Why take an English man out of his warme bed And his stale drinke, but one moneth, And alas what wil become of him? But give the Frenchman a Reddish roote And he will live with it all the dayes of his life. 112 In Shakespeare's Henry V, much the same feeling is expressed by the French Constable. T h e English soldiers have just been called stupid and compared to mastiffs, and the Constable adds: Give them great meals of beef and iron and steel, they will eat like wolves and fight like devils.

Shakespeare and the Drama

79

Orleans. Ay, but these English are shrowdly out of beef. Con. Then shall we find to-morrow they have only stomachs to eat and none to fight. (III. vii. 161-66) Again in I Henry VI the French are caused to air these views: Charles. The famish'd English, like pale ghosts Faintly besiege us one hour in a month. Alenfon. They want their porridge and their fat bull-beeves. Either they must be dieted like mules And have their provender tied to their mouths, Or piteous they will look, like drowned mice. (I. ii. J-12) When the French suffer reverses despite their earlier confidence, they still harp on this theme. 1 1 3 Other offenses and vices besides gaming that appear in the military books and disciplinary codes are presented in the dramatic treatment of the low comedy soldier, especially the miles gloriosus. Typical of these offenses and vices are: cowardice on the field, rapacity for booty, disobedience to superiors and lack of respect, noisiness, quarrelsomeness, attempts to leave service without permission, theft, disrespect for holy places and persons, arrogation of military accomplishments.1 1 4 The military writers are well-nigh unanimous in asserting that such offenses are not to be found in real soldiers, and they resent the public's indiscriminate calumny of the profession. They commonly agree, however, that these vices appear often in the armed forces of England because of the type of soldier levied there and the poor discipline prevailing in armies whose officers are unwisely and corruptly chosen. Further, the inefficiency and corruptness which deprive the soldier of his pay and due rewards are held to be at fault. Barnabe Rich, castigating these depraved soldiers, writes: Opinion sendeth men to the warre corrupted with vices, where they oppose themselves against all order and Disciplin, they robbe, they spoyle, they sweare, they swagger, they quarrell, they eate, they drinke, they fight, they faint, they flye, they are couragious in spoyle, and

80

Shakespeare and the Drama

cowardes in fight, they are curious in speech, and carelesse of reputation, there is neither glory in their victory, nor dishonour in their flight.115 Geoffry Gates in his Defence of Militarie Profession, though he takes the "vulgar multitude" to task for its indiscriminate criticism of soldiers, concedes the justice of their censure of those who do not act like soldiers, the common sort of our Countrie men that go to warre, of purpose more to spoyle, then to serve: and as under colour of pursuite of Armes, they put themselves to the libertie and use of swearing, dronkenes, shameles fornication, dicing, and Theevery, in slowe warres, and under loase government in the tumultuous state of a foreign nation, where they thinke it a foolishe scrupulositie, to use either tendernes of conscience, or yet any honest maners: So doe they returne into their Countrie, so much corrupted with all maner of evils, that they seeme rather to come from hel, then from the exercise of warlike armes, or from the regiment of militarie discipline: and therefore so venemous a broode to their native countrey . . . that they are rather to be vometed out of the bulke of the common wealth, then to be nourished in the same.116 The Huf, Ruf, and Snuf of Thomas Preston's A Lamentable Tragedy are typical low comedy soldiers. They admittedly go to war to spoil and ravish, but for all their quarrelsomeness and bragging, they are quickly put down by the whore, Meretrix, who beats Ruf and Snuf and disarms the former. The disarming of the cowardly braggart soldier by a woman was a stock device of the theater, but elements of realism are apparent in these comedy figures.117 Thomas Heywood in / Edward IV gives a fairly extended picture of the rebel army of Falconbridge. The conversation of the soldiers, like their names, is rude. They are led by Spicing, Smoke, and Chub, three braggart soldiers, who embody most of the vices associated in the military texts with the incompetent officers drawn from the lowest strata of society. They are the "tapsterly praters, and ale-bench braggers, who know no point of souldierie in the world," of whom Barret writes. 118 They are dramatic evidence that, as Count Jacopo di Porcia put it,

Shakespeare and the Drama

81

the condition of the base and rude people, is pivysh and mutable, eyther wilye and boundely to serve, or elles after a proude and haulte demeanours, to beare rule. Wherfore the multitude never justly ne egally can beare rule and offyce thorough theyr arrogaunte, stubburne, and stately conditions, whyche use all kynde of crueltie, temperyng and measuryng all thynges by theyr fancye, and not by reason'.119 Instead of maintaining order, silence, and obedience, which Gyles Clayton declares to be the sum of military discipline, they sow disorder, noise and bestiality: Falconbridge.

Hold, drum!

Spicing. Hold, drum, and be hanged! SmoI{e. Hold drum, hold! peace then, ho! Silence to the proclamation. Spi. You lie, you rogue; 'tis to the oration. Chub. Nay, then, you all lie; 'tis to the coblication. Fal. True-hearted English, and our valiant friends— All. Ho! brave General, i' faith." 0

(/. ii)

This sort of nonsense continues to interrupt Falconbridge, who attempts to justify the insurrection to his men. They, however, are out merely for booty and their own profit. Their comments are silly and they are quarrelsome. Captain Spicing rehearses to them all the wealth and carousing that await them in London. While Falconbridge is parleying with the Mayor before London gates, Captain Smoke, Spicing, and Chub intersperse their lewd remarks periodically. When the apprentices of the city marshal themselves against the forces of Falconbridge, Spicing takes the superior attitude of a professional soldier to civilian combatants: How now, my flat-caps; are you grown so brave? 'Tis but your words: when matters come to proof. You'll scud as 'twere a company of sheep. My counsel therefore is to keep your shops.

82

Shakespeare and the Drama "What lack you?" better will beseem your mouths Than terms of war. In sooth, you are too young. (/. iv)

T h e reply of the Second Apprentice readily identifies Spicing's type: You are those desperate, idle, swaggering mates, That haunt the suburbs in the time of peace, And raise up ale-house brawls in the street; And when the rumour of the war begins, You hide your heads, and are not to be found. (/. iv) T h e tendency of such martial braggarts to disappear when there is a real opportunity for military service has already been noted above. 121 Barnabe Good, in a letter prefatory to Rich's Allarme,

de-

scribes the same peculiarity of the braggarts: Souldiers ynough we have that in time of peace can range their battailles, cast out their skirmishes, assault townes, and conquer kingdomes, that a man would judge them at the first sight, for very Hectors and Hanniballes. But these be they, (I know not how it happeneth) that are the first that will be gone, when they come to it. 122 Despite the warm words of address we have just quoted from Falconbridge, he has no illusions about his army of "dirty scum of rascal peasantry." When it comes to the test, Captain Spicing is all for retiring from the battle; but when Falconbridge taxes him with his cowardice, he is quickly offended and threatens to desert him. With Falstaffian exaggeration, he descants on his own valor: Nay, Tom Falconbridge, if thou wilt have me mount on the walls, And cast myself down headlong on their pikes, I'll do it. But to impeach my valour! Had any man but thou spoke half so much, I would have split his heart. Still beware My valour: such words go hardly down. Well, I am friends: thou thought'st not as thou spakest.

a Scottish ballad writer on the side of the Reformers. This poet repeats twice in the poem that his account is based on report and that he was not present at the siege. 39 Writing his description by report and with considerable partiality, Sempill is guilty of some inaccuracies. Both poems open with the preparations of the Berwick forces to

162

Churchyard

and

Gascoigne

join in the Scottish broils. Churchyard's account shows the English forces mustering and practising the art of shooting: As cause fell out and brought in matters new, (And bluddy minds set many a broyl a broetch) So souldiers swarmd, and lowd they trumpet blew, Whose sounde did shoe at hand did warrs aproetch; Than marshall men, in coats of iron and steell, With great regard did waite on cannon wheell, And in the feeld a noble martch they maede To practise shot, and skowre the rusty blade.40 Sempill recalls their services at Leith, and has nothing but praise for the soldiers. His comment on the orderly array of the English forces calls to mind the injunction of the military texts that the army should march in strict formation so that the officers may at all times be accountable for their men and prevent theft and misconduct by the soldiers on the way. 4 1 Buschment of Beruik make zow for the gait To ring zour drummis and rank zour men of weir Address zour armour bound 42 zow for debait With sound of trumpet mak zour steids to steir Sen ze are freikes that weil dar fecht but feir. As for exampill we have sene zow ellis, Lyk as the last tym that zour Camp come heir Lend us ane bourrouing of zour auld blak bellis. Zour camp convoyit but cummer throw the land In gude array and rewlit by thair rank. Reddie to pas as plesit us command, Throw all our bounds to the west sey bank. 43 Churchyard and Sempill both dwell on the disorders which followed upon the death of Regent Murray. Conditions had become so bad in the headless land that, purportedly, an outer force had to be called in to put the state to rights. At first, Elizabeth attempted by pacific means to restore order in the rebellious land where "cut throet knief in sheath could seldom rest"; but when "stordi minds stoed stifly in thear cace," cannons had to take the place of gentle

Churchyard and Gascoigne

163

persuasion. Then the rebels hastened to their stronghold in Edinburgh. Both Sempill and Churchyard praise Sir William Drury's little army that marched bravely through hostile territory. Churchyard explains that the justice of their cause, their courage and boldness, doubled the strength of the English. Sempill is at pains, however, to show that the Scots who had been loyal to the Regent had done all in their power to help themselves until their English allies had come, on their request, to help the Scots restore national order. 44 Churchyard and Sempill both describe the battery of Edinburgh with considerable vividness and realism; but while Churchyard generously describes the subtle defenses and counter-offensives of the garrison, Sempill pictures only the effectiveness of the besiegers. After the spur of the fort had been taken (May 26), the English artillery gained complete mastery of the fortress. "Our gonnarrs," says Churchyard, "cowld dismownt what peece they wold." The situation inside the castle had become hopeless. Food, water and ammunition had grown scarce. The well within the fort had been choked up by the falling of the main tower of the castle, and the well outside the walls had been poisoned. The garrison was forced to do with what rain water it could collect in barrels placed by gutter spouts. Sempill describes their plight without remorse: Be syde the woll at syndrie tymes we slew thame, That ever thay saw us some of thame forthocht it And poysonit woll to drink quhat docht it. Infekit watter sowlit thame cheik and chin, Persaving that sorrow mair thay socht it. Bot keppit standfulis at the Sklatis thair in.45 Churchyard's conjecture that the garrison forces now became rebellious and divided into factions was well founded, as may be seen from Killigrew's letter to Lord Burleigh, dated June 20.46 The experienced soldier, Churchyard, had doubtless, like Gascoigne, gone through similar experiences before this occasion.

164

Churchyard and Gascoigne

According to Churchyard, the castle was now sufficiently weakened and breached to make assault feasible. The soldiers were eager and readily volunteered for the dangerous service to the delight of their general who promised: "If I live, my pors, my powr and all/ (To serve your torns) shall reddy be at call." 47 The dangerous task of scouting at the breach was soon completed, and one or two bands of valiant volunteers were already mariching thither when the fort surrendered (May 29). Sempill's account goes a little beyond this point. He describes with some vindictivenesss the spoiling of the castle on this day, happy for the victors, but d