Henry Iii Reform Rebellion Civil War Settlement

12581272 David Carpenter download

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-reform-rebellion-civil-
war-settlement-12581272-david-carpenter-51443068

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Henry Iii The Rise To Power And Personal Rule 12071258 Vol 1 David
Carpenter

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-the-rise-to-power-and-
personal-rule-12071258-vol-1-david-carpenter-51893370

Henry Iii Of England And The Staufen Empire 12161272 Bjrn Ku Weiler

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-of-england-and-the-staufen-
empire-12161272-bjrn-ku-weiler-52458458

Henry Iii Henry Iii The Rise To Power And Personal Rule 12071258 The
English Monarchs Series 1st Edition David Carpenter

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-henry-iii-the-rise-to-power-
and-personal-rule-12071258-the-english-monarchs-series-1st-edition-
david-carpenter-33172176

Henry Iii The Great King England Never Knew It Had Darren Baker

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-the-great-king-england-never-
knew-it-had-darren-baker-230216482
Henry Iii Stephen Church

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-stephen-church-46211402

Henry Iii The Great King England Never Knew It Had Darren Baker

https://ebookbell.com/product/henry-iii-the-great-king-england-never-
knew-it-had-darren-baker-11376866

The Holy Blood King Henry Iii And The Westminster Blood Relic Nicholas
Vincent

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-holy-blood-king-henry-iii-and-the-
westminster-blood-relic-nicholas-vincent-52432326

The Two Eleanors Of Henry Iii The Lives Of Eleanor Of Provence And
Eleanor De Montfort Darren Baker

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-two-eleanors-of-henry-iii-the-lives-
of-eleanor-of-provence-and-eleanor-de-montfort-darren-baker-42725218

The Two Eleanors Of Henry Iii Darren Baker

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-two-eleanors-of-henry-iii-darren-
baker-51491434
H E N RY I I I

i
Also in the Yale English Monarchs Series

ÆTHELSTAN by Sarah Foot

CNUT THE GREAT by Timothy Bolton
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR by Frank Barlow
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR by Tom Licence
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR by David Bates
WILLIAM RUFUS by Frank Barlow
HENRY I by Warren Hollister
KING STEPHEN by Edmund King
HENRY II by W. L. Warren*
RICHARD I by John Gillingham
KING JOHN by W. L. Warren*
HENRY III (2 vols) by David Carpenter
EDWARD I by Michael Prestwich
EDWARD II by Seymour Phillips
EDWARD III by W. M. Ormrod
RICHARD II by Nigel Saul
HENRY IV by Chris Given-Wilson
HENRY V by Christopher Allmand
HENRY VI by Bertram Wolffe
EDWARD IV by Charles Ross
RICHARD III by Charles Ross
RICHARD III by Michael Hicks
HENRY VII by S. B. Chrimes
HENRY VIII by J. J. Scarisbrick
EDWARD VI by Jennifer Loach
MARY I by John Edwards
JAMES II by John Miller
QUEEN ANNE by Edward Gregg
GEORGE I by Ragnhild Hatton
GEORGE II by Andrew C. Thompson
GEORGE III by Jeremy Black
GEORGE IV by E. A. Smith

* Available in the U.S. from University of California Press

ii
 H E N RY I I I
Reform, Rebellion, Civil War, Settlement
1258–1272

David Carpenter

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW HAVEN AND LONDON

iii
Copyright © 2023 David Carpenter

All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form
(beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and
except by reviewers for the public press) without written permission from the publishers.

All reasonable efforts have been made to provide accurate sources for all images that
appear in this book. Any discrepancies or omissions will be rectified in future editions.

For information about this and other Yale University Press publications, please contact:
U.S. Office: [email protected] yalebooks.com
Europe Office: [email protected] yalebooks.co.uk

Set in Baskerville by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd

Printed in Great Britain by TJ Books, Padstow, Cornwall

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022950363

e-ISBN 978-0-300-27127-0

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

iv
 To Jane, Katie and James,
and in memory of my parents

v
vi
 CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS viii

PREFACE x
A NOTE ON THE TEXT xiv

1 Revolution and Reform, 1258–1259 1

2 The Material and the Moral: Simon de Montfort and 47
Baronial Motives, 1258–1259
3 Henry, Queen Eleanor and Lord Edward, 1258–1259 66
4 The Treaty of Paris, 1258–1259 83
5 Henry and his People 109
6 Triumph: Henry’s Recovery of Power, 1260–1261 173
7 Disaster: Simon de Montfort’s Return and Henry’s 227
Capitulation, 1262–1263
8 The Collapse of Simon de Montfort’s Rule and the Civil 274
War, July 1263–May 1264
9 Montfort Victorious: From the Battle of Lewes to the 321
Parliament of 1265
10 Montfort’s Kingdom 357
11 Montfort’s Downfall: From the Parliament of 1265 to the 416
Battle of Evesham
12 The War of the Disinherited, 1265–1267 458
13 Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the Crusade, 1268–1270 523
14 Recovery and Resettlement 570
15 The Last Two Years, 1270–1272 600
16 Epilogue and Conclusion 621

GLOSSARY 640
APPENDIX 1 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE COSMATI WORK 644
   AT WESTMINSTER ABBEY
APPENDIX 2 HENRY’S WILL 654
BIBLIOGRAPHY 656
INDEX 6 83

vii
 IL LUS T R AT I O N S A ND MAPS

PLATES
1. The shield of Simon de Montfort in the choir of Westminster Abbey.
© Dean and Chapter of Westminster.
2. The seal of Eleanor de Montfort. © Bibliothèque nationale de France,
Département des Manuscrits, Clairambault 1188.
3. Henry III’s proclamation announcing the authority of the council in
1258. © Oxfordshire History Centre (OCA4/1/A1/58).
4. Henry bearing the coffin of Louis IX’s son in Paris. © Bibliothèque
Nationale, Paris, Department of Manuscripts, Clairambault 632.
5. The ruling council’s ratification of the peace with France, October
1259. © Archives Nationales de France (J 629 / 10).
6. The battlefield of Lewes. By kind permission of The Sussex
Archaeological Society.
7. English Heritage reconstruction drawing of Kenilworth castle.
© Historic England Archive (IC053_028).
8. The chapter house of Westminster Abbey. © Dean and Chapter of
Westminster.
9. Charter, 1265. © Herefordshire Record Office (BG/11/15/6).
10. Henry III’s itinerary before the battle of Evesham. © The National
Archives.
11. The mutilation of Simon de Montfort’s body at the battle of Evesham.
© British Library Board. All Rights Reserved / Bridgeman Images.
12. The Douce Apocalypse. CC by NC 4.0. © Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford.
13. Vault of Westminster Abbey. © Paul Grover / Alamy.
14. Westminster Abbey’s Cosmati pavement. © Dean and Chapter of
Westminster.
15. Centre stone of Westminster Abbey’s Cosmati pavement. © Dean and
Chapter of Westminster.
16. Coronation of Edward the Confessor, as copied by Charles Stothard, 1819.
Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection (B1977.14.22593).
17. Sketch of Henry III’s head on memoranda roll of the exchequer,
1266–7. © The National Archives.
18. King Edward, from the sedilia of Westminster Abbey. © Dean and
Chapter of Westminster.

viii
 illus trations and maps ix

19. King Henry, from the sedilia of Westminster Abbey. © Dean and
Chapter of Westminster.
20. Shrine of Edward the Confessor and tomb of Henry III. © Greg
Funnell 2007. All rights reserved.
21. Engravings of a queen and young woman. © Dean and Chapter of
Westminster.
22. Henry III’s head from the effigy on his tomb in Westminster Abbey.
© Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

MAPS
1. Wales in the 1250s and 1260s. xvi
2. The Treaty of Paris. 84
3. The Battle of Lewes. 314
4. The Campaigns between May and August 1265. 433
5. The Battle of Evesham. 446
 P R E FAC E

Volume 1 of this biography ended with the parliament of April 1258 when
an armed march on Westminster Hall forced Henry III to accept reform of
the realm. Volume 2 continues from that point and takes the story to Henry’s
death in 1272. Although it covers only fourteen years of the reign as opposed
to volume 1’s over forty, it is much the same length. I am not conscious of
writing at any different pace. It is simply that the years from 1258 are the
more packed with incident, indeed politically they are amongst the most
dramatic and traumatic periods in English history. After the Westminster
parliament, a baronial council took control of the country and promulgated
reforms far more revolutionary and wide-ranging than those of Magna
Carta in 1215. They were known as the Provisions of Oxford. In 1261, Henry
recovered power only to lose it in 1263 to a movement pledged to restore the
Provisions. It was led by his brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, earl of
Leicester, one of the greatest figures in English history, venerated and vilified
in equal measure. On 14 May 1264 Montfort won a miraculous victory at the
battle of Lewes, taking prisoner both Henry and his eldest son, Lord Edward.
Thereafter Montfort governed England down to his defeat and death (his
body gruesomely mutilated) at the battle of Evesham on 4 August 1265. The
royalist victory, however, only brought more war. Henry’s government
attempted to disinherit Montfort’s supporters and the result was two further
years of strife. The period between 1263 and 1267 saw widespread destruc-
tion. There was a massacre of the Jews in London and attacks on them in
other towns. Both sides ravaged the estates and seized the possessions of their
enemies. The political community was torn apart in a way unseen again until
the 1640s. But in the end the policy of disinheritance was reversed, the
wounds of the war closed over and Henry’s reign ended in peace.
The period of reform and rebellion between 1258 and 1265 has been
accorded great social and constitutional significance, rightly so. Hostility
to the king’s foreign relations and fear of foreign invasion sharpened and
defined a sense of English national identity. In 1263, Simon de Montfort
even promulgated a ‘statute’ expelling aliens from the country, ‘never to
return’. The political community expanded in size and came to embrace
knights, townsmen and peasants as well as earls and barons. Knights
representing the counties and burgesses the towns were summoned to
Simon de Montfort’s parliament of 1265, ‘the first parliament with a house
of commons’. A precedent was set. The parliaments of Henry’s last years

x
 p r e fac e  xi

were very different in terms of structure from those before 1258. These
events were inseparable from political ideas and those ideas were insep­
arable from religion. Leading churchmen deeply influenced the political
actors, none more so than Simon de Montfort himself. That is one reason
why the reforms, in a unique way, were as much concerned with the
malpractices of magnates as with those of the king.
The period created new relationships between England and its neigh-
bours, although they were not to last. The Treaty of Paris in 1259, with
Henry resigning his claims to Normandy, Anjou and Poitou, while accepting
he held Gascony as a fief from the king of France, reshaped the political
structure of Europe and ushered in thirty-five years of Anglo-French peace.
The treaty of Montgomery in 1267 set up a new political structure in Wales,
with the ruler of Gwynedd, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, being recognized as its
prince. Scotland, meanwhile, was left to itself. King Alexander III, thanks
to the good relations fostered by Henry before 1258, behaved very differ-
ently from his father in the rebellion against King John. Alexander II had
sided with the barons. Alexander III was about to send forces to Henry’s
aid when forestalled by news of Evesham. There was equally no repeat of
the interaction between English and Irish politics seen both under King
John and in the crisis of 1233–4.
The political revolution robbing Henry of power means he is less central
to volume 2 than to volume 1. In 1258–9 the great reform of the realm, its
ambitions, motivations and achievements, holds the stage. Thereafter, the
story is increasingly dominated by Simon de Montfort, one of the few medi-
eval nobles whose character and ideas shine forth from abundant source
material. Henry also comes to be overshadowed by his eldest son. From 1263,
Lord Edward is the essential commander of the royalist cause. The contrast
between Henry’s inertia and Edward’s drive is extreme. Also important was
Henry’s queen, Eleanor of Provence. Far more steely than her husband, she
had much to do with his varying fortunes in 1258, 1261 and 1263. In 1264 she
raised an army to invade England after Henry’s and Edward’s capture at
Lewes. Yet, for all the prominence of Simon de Montfort, Lord Edward and
the queen, Henry can never be ignored. His will, if exercised spasmodically,
often impacted on events. He survived battles and captivity to die peacefully
in his bed. By then, he had one great achievement to his credit, the greatest
he would have thought of his reign. On 13 October 1269 his new Abbey at
Westminster was consecrated and the body of Edward the Confessor trans-
lated to its glittering new shrine behind the high altar.
Given their appeal and importance, the years between 1258 and 1267
have been much travelled by historians, far more so than many periods of
Henry’s personal rule.1 I could not have written this book without their
manifold and great labours. Many have shared with me the fruits of so far

1 A clear and concise account can be found in Adrian Jobson’s The First English Revolution:

Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons’ War.

xii p r e fac e

unpublished research. I thank them all in the following pages. If, nonethe-
less, I have missed or misapplied the work of fellow scholars, I apologize. As
I said in the introduction to volume 1, every time I read something new or
look again at something old, I find material I wish to include. But that would
make a long book even longer. I fear I remain an academic rather than a
popular historian, more concerned to delve down into the detail than to
think how to get the reader to turn the page. But I trust the uniqueness and
drama of the story will carry the reader through, or at least encourage
reading a part here, a part there (the chapters are divided into sections),
rather as I dip into Jacques Le Goff ’s 1,000-page biography of Henry’s
brother-in-law Saint Louis, although that certainly is a very different book.
It is somewhat daunting to realize that forty years have passed since I
signed up to write the biography of Henry III in what was then the
Methuen English Monarchs series. I do not regret the delay. After all it
gives me less time to learn I have got it all wrong! More seriously, had the
book come out around 1990, as first intended, it would have been far less
rich. That is very much due to the work of so many fellow historians in the
intervening years. It is also because I hope I have gained a deeper under-
standing of the primary sources. These enable the day-to-day politics of
the reign to be traced in unprecedented detail, which is fortunate for me
as I have always been fascinated by events, by the ‘what happened next
and why’ in history.2 I think also, over the years, I have gained a greater
appreciation of how Henry’s story opens a window onto the wider culture
of the age. This is why, as well as giving them separate treatment in
volume 1, I have tried to graft Henry’s piety and artistic patronage into the
political narrative throughout, like the shells in a shaft of Purbeck marble.
To the narrative in volume 2, I have added two thematic chapters. One,
‘Henry and his People’, looks at the light shed on his personal rule by all
the complaints made against royal and baronial officials in 1258–9. The
other, ‘Montfort’s Kingdom’, considers the material and ideological basis
for the great earl’s revolutionary regime.3 I have also included a Glossary
explaining some of the terms appearing in the book.

2 It would have been impossible for Jacques Le Goff to have written the same kind of

detailed narrative of the reign of Saint Louis, not that he would have wanted to do so
anyway.
3 I salute here the unnamed heroes who produced so much of the source material of the

reign, namely the royal clerks who wrote up the rolls of the chancery, the exchequer and
the law courts. The chancery rolls alone, recording the king’s charters and letters (as
published now either in full Latin transcription or in English calendar), run to over 14,500
pages. The translations of the Henry III fine rolls by Paul Dryburgh and Beth Hartland,
placed online by the Henry III fine rolls project (www.finerollshenry3.org.uk), run to around
two million words. No wonder the clerks occasionally lightened their labours by including
marginal drawings, doggerel poems and such remarks as ‘every man the first good wine
(omnis homo primum bonum vinum)’, thus adapting Christ’s observation that every man serves
the best wine first (John 2:10): TNA E 159/31, m. 8d (image 0101). Illustrations of marginalia
are brought together in Hershey, Drawings.
 p r e fac e  xiii

In the process of seeing the book through to publication, I have

incurred many debts. One is to Stephen Church and Michael Prestwich,
who read a draft of the book for Yale and made many valuable sugges-
tions.4 The book has also benefited from being read by Richard Cassidy,
Adrian Jobson and my brother, Michael Carpenter. Richard has produced
the Index, while Adrian has compiled the Bibliography and put the foot-
notes into consistent form. As with volume 1, the text has been copy-edited
by Richard Mason, its clarity and consistency being much improved by his
eagle-eyed expertise.
At Yale I owe a great debt to Heather McCallum, who has kept faith with
Henry III over very many years. The two volumes of this biography would
not have appeared without her encouragement and support. Her colleagues
Rachael Lonsdale, Katie Urquart and Meg Pettit have all worked on the
book, while Heather Nathan and James Williams have looked after
marketing and publicity. As with volume 1, the proofreader was Chris Shaw
and the maps were drawn by Martin Brown. I am grateful to them all.
I thank Matthew Payne, Tony Trowles and Christine Reynolds for all
their help in the Library and Muniment Room at Westminster Abbey and
Jessica Nelson and Paul Dryburgh for their help at The National Archives.
Throughout the years I have been inspired and sustained by the very many
undergraduates, MA students and doctoral students who have worked with
me on the reign of Henry III. I have been sustained and inspired too by
the congenial environment created by my colleagues in the History
Department at King’s. Daniel Hadas has continued to help me with both
Latin translations and questions of theology. Alice Taylor I thank as before.
Thanks to Amicie Pélissié du Rausas for locating image 4 of the plate
section; additionally map 2 is based on one drawn by Amicie.
The book is dedicated to my wife Jane and my children Katie and James.
As I walk round Westminster Abbey, admire the beauty of the south
transept and see the heads of Henry and Eleanor in the muniment room
and the sculpture of the smiling craftsman in the triforium, I reflect that
my lease on these has now all too short a date. I feel the same when
reading through the letters on the chancery rolls, those letters taking us so
close to the personality and outlook of the king. But the lease will pass, has
passed, on to others. I hope they will have as much fun studying the reign
of Henry III as I have done.
David A. Carpenter
King’s College London, July 2022

4 Inspired by Michael’s information about the fish (when commenting on volume 1), I

have now sampled lampreys. They taste like beef stew and are thus an excellent meat
substitute. One can understand why Henry and Eleanor thought other fish ‘insipid’. For
the recipe (cooked by Claire Gaskell), see https://worldoffinewine.com/2021/10/21/
at-the-table-lamproie-a-la-bordelaise. The lampreys came, however, from the Dordogne,
not, as with Henry, the Severn.
 A N OT E O N T HE T EX T

MONEY AND ITS VALUE

In the reign of Henry III, save for a brief period in the 1250s when he
launched a gold coinage, there was only one coin of the realm, namely
the silver penny, or in Latin ‘denarius’. Although amounts of money were
frequently expressed in terms of pounds (Latin ‘libra’), shillings (Latin
‘solidus’) and pence (hence l. s. d.), pounds and shillings were terms of
account. There were no pound or shilling coins. There were 240 pennies
in a pound, 12 pennies in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound. Another
term of account was ‘mark’, worth two-thirds of a pound, so 13s 4d or 160
pennies. Rather than convert all money into pounds, shillings and pence,
I have for the most part followed the contemporary sources in using some-
times pounds and sometimes marks, so having 100 marks rather than the
cumbersome £66 13s 4d. Unless otherwise stated all money is expressed in
terms of these English values.
In Henry’s reign a day’s wage for a male labourer was 1½d and for a
female 1d. When Henry III fed paupers, the cost was usually between 1d
and 1½d per head per day. Bread came in half- or quarter-penny loaves.
(It was lawful to cut the silver penny into halves and quarters.) The day’s
wage for a professional knight was 24d or 2s. In 1244 landholders with
incomes of £20 a year were obliged to take up knighthood. In 1256 the
level was lowered to £15. Many barons had incomes of several hundred
pounds a year. The annual income of an earl could be several thousands.
After it had recovered from collapse in the 1215–1217 civil war, the ordi-
nary annual income of the crown was around £25,000 a year.1

FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

In the footnotes, works by contemporary authors appear for the most part
under either the name of the author (so Paris, short for Matthew Paris) or,
in the case of chronicles where the author is unknown, under the name of
the place where the chronicle was written (so Dunstable). Record sources
are cited by an abbreviated form of the published title (so CR, with the

1 For standards of living, see C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social

Change in England c.1200–1520 (Cambridge, 1989).

xiv
 a note on the text xv

relevant dates, for Close Rolls). Full references to all these sources may be
found in the Bibliography. In references to unprinted sources, BL stands
for the British Library, TNA for The National Archives at Kew and WAM
for Westminster Abbey Muniments. Other archival references are given in
full. Secondary sources are cited by the surname of the author and a short
form of the title of the work, italicized in the case of books, within
inverted commas in the case of articles and chapters in volumes of essays.
Full details may be found in the Bibliography under the name of the
author. I have stuck to the division between primary and secondary
sources although many printed primary sources have important introduc-
tions by their editors.

PERSONAL NAMES
In the case of toponymic surnames, the modern form of the place has
been given preceded by ‘of ’, so Warin of Bassingbourn. The exceptions
are where this would overturn established usage, so Gilbert de Clare not
Gilbert of Clare. If the place is in France, the modern form is given
preceded by ‘de’, but again exceptions are made where this contradicts
established usage, so Robert de Ferrers, not de Ferrières. Where places
have not been identified, a common contemporary form is used preceded
by ‘de’. In general, I have tried to follow the forms found in the transla-
tions of the fine rolls: https://finerollshenry3.org.uk/home.html
 Deganwy
A NG LE SEY Dyserth COUNTY
THE FOUR Mold Hawarden
Bangor CANTREFS Chester OF
D D
E CHESTER
N Y S
Y OW
W H
P
G T
N OR Ellesmere
Oswestry
fitzAlan

W YS Shrewsbury
PO
Irish T
H S ev e
rn
U CYDEWAIN Montgomery
O MONTGOMERY
Sea I
S

C ER
GWERTHRYNION
N

Mortimer
IO

MAELIENYDD
Wigmore
IG

Cefnllys
D

CARDIGAN BU I LTH ELFAEL

E
R

E Builth Clifford
C
Cardigan Painscastle Hereford
Hay Wye

Brecon
St Davids CARMARTHEN BRECON
Carmarthen Abergavenny
Bohun Haverford

Usk Clare
PEMBROKE
Pembroke Valence Swansea Chepstow
GOWER GLAMORGAN Bigod
Areas ruled by Briouze Clare Caerphilly
Llywelyn, 1255
Cardiff
Territory ceded to
Llywelyn, 1267 N

Areas where Llywelyn

was ceded homages of
Welsh rulers, 1267/70
Boundary of Llywelyn’s
principality
Clare Marcher baronies 0 25 miles
Crown lands
0 25 km

1. Wales in the 1250s and 1260s

xvi
 Chapter 1

RE VO LUT I O N AN D REFO RM
1 25 8–1 25 9

In April 1258 a great parliament met at Westminster. Its climax came on

30 April when a group of barons marched into Westminster Hall and
confronted King Henry III. Although they left their swords at the entrance
to the Hall, they were in full armour. Henry appreciated at once the
novelty and menace of this demonstration. ‘What is this, my lords, am I,
poor wretch, your prisoner?’ he cried out. The answer was ‘no’ but he
must now accept a baronially led reform of the realm.1 The revolution of
1258 had begun.
What had brought to this perilous pass a king famed for his personal
piety, a king who had given many years of peace to the country and quite
lacked the cruelty and malevolence of his father, King John? It is not diffi-
cult to answer the question. Henry’s open-handed patronage of his foreign
relations, first the Savoyard uncles of his queen, Eleanor of Provence, and
then his own Lusignan half-brothers from Poitou, had created factional
struggles at court he quite lacked the skill and authority to control.2 Added
to this, there was the failure of Henry’s 1257 campaign in Wales and worse,
far worse, the folly of his scheme to place his second son, Edmund, on the
throne of Sicily. This involved agreeing to pay the pope £90,000 for the
offer of the throne and, once this was paid, sending an army to conquer
Sicily from its Hohenstaufen ruler. Henry was told, quite rightly, that the
terms were utterly impossible and illustrated both his ‘simplicity’ and his
readiness to forge ahead without the realm’s counsel and consent.
Nonetheless at the Westminster parliament Henry had demanded a
gigantic tax to pursue the project, while a papal envoy had threatened the
realm with an interdict if it was not conceded.

1
Volume 1, 696.
2
The queen’s uncles were the brothers of her mother, Beatrice, a daughter of the count
of Savoy. Of them, Peter of Savoy became lord of Richmond in Yorkshire and Pevensey
in Sussex while Boniface became archbishop of Canterbury. The king’s half-brothers were
the children of his mother Isabella of Angoulême’s second marriage to Hugh, lord of
Lusignan in Poitou and count of La Marche. Two of the brothers settled in England, the
youngest, Aymer, who became bishop-elect of Winchester, and William de Valence who,
besides Hertford castle and other lands, gained, through marriage, Pembroke in Wales.
Two other brothers, Guy and Geoffrey de Lusignan, made frequent visits to England and
were given wardships and money pensions.


 h e n ry i i i

Alongside these problems of patronage and policy, there were other

reasons for Henry’s isolation. For all his piety, he had alienated the church,
most recently by allowing its taxation by the pope in the Sicilian cause.
There was also dissatisfaction with the king’s rule throughout the counties
of England. Unlike his brother-in-law King Louis IX of France, Henry
had done little to reform the running of local government. Denied signifi-
cant taxation from parliament, he had demanded more and more money
from his sheriffs and justices, thus making them increasingly unpopular.
Equally unpopular were the local officials of leading magnates, both native
and foreign, something Henry lamented but did nothing about. Indeed, his
protection, or so it was believed, obstructed the bringing of lawsuits against
those in his favour. During the Westminster parliament itself, he was
accused of refusing justice to the magnate John fitzGeoffrey when John
complained about the king’s half-brother Aymer de Lusignan, bishop-elect
of Winchester. This was one of the triggers of the revolution.3
Taking all this together, it was easy by 1258 to think that Henry was
incapable of effective rule and had reduced the realm, as the barons put
it, to an ‘imbecilic state’.
What made this more serious for the king was that criticisms of his rule
were expressed and remedies propounded at an institution new both in
name and power. This was parliament.4 Of course kings had always
summoned the great and good of the land to give them counsel. Under
the Anglo-Saxon kings such assemblies had been called witans, under the
Anglo-Norman and Angevin, ‘councils’ or ‘great councils’. The name
parliament arrived in the 1230s and stuck. It was more than just a new
name for an old institution. It reflected the fact that such assemblies were
radically new in terms of their power. This was because the king, for the
first time in English history, wished, on a regular basis, to supplement his
ordinary revenues with levies of general taxation. Thanks to all the gifts
of Henry’s predecessors, royal income from land was much diminished.
Magna Carta had made it more difficult to exploit other sources of
revenue. If Henry was to pursue great projects, if he was to recover his lost
continental empire or conquer Sicily, he needed general taxation. But
both practical politics and the stipulations of the 1215 Magna Carta meant
such taxes required the consent of parliament. In the 1240s and 1250s,
Henry had gone again and again to parliament and asked for taxation.
Again and again he had been refused save on terms he deemed unac-
ceptable.5 The great lever of parliamentary power down the ages, control
over taxation, thus appeared for the first time in real action. It was the
demand for a tax at the Westminster parliament that brought Henry’s
regime crashing to the ground.

3
See volume 1, 688; SERHB, i, no. 5.
4
The classic work on parliament is John Maddicott’s The Origins of the English Parliament.
5 See volume 1, 758 (the index under parliament).
 revolution and reform 

The final march on the king’s hall was almost certainly masterminded
by seven magnates who had leagued themselves together earlier in the
parliament. They were Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford,
Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, Peter
of Savoy, Hugh Bigod (Roger Bigod’s brother), John fitzGeoffrey and Peter
de Montfort (no relation of Simon, though, as we will see, a close ally).6
All, save Roger Bigod, had been on the king’s council before 1258, so this
was very much a revolution within the court of Henry III. The seven were
determined to bring down the Lusignans, take over the government of the
realm and carry through, to some degree at least, a wider programme of
reform. The fact that Queen Eleanor’s uncle Peter of Savoy was one of
the seven showed that the queen herself sympathized with the revolution.
It would, she hoped, lay low her Lusignan enemies and prevent them
allying (a particular anxiety) with the heir to the throne, her son Lord
Edward.7
The ensuing revolution was unprecedented in its scope and scale. The
king was stripped of power and a baronial council took over the govern-
ment of the country. This was far more revolutionary than Magna Carta
in 1215, which had placed all kinds of restrictions on King John but left
him in control of central government and free to appoint whom he liked
as his ministers. The revolution also overhauled the running of local
government, with measures focusing on the abuses of magnates as well as
those of the king. Here, too, ‘1258’ was very different from ‘1215’. The
intended beneficiaries were knights, free tenants and even peasants. The
political community was expanding in size. The foundations were being
laid for the summoning of knights and burgesses to parliament. Meanwhile,
of the major items on Henry III’s agenda before the revolution, the
campaign in Wales was abandoned by the barons, while the Sicilian
project was effectively terminated by the pope, for all Henry’s hopes of its
revival. The peace with France, however, went ahead. So, in a watershed
moment in European history, Henry abandoned claims to his lost conti-
nental empire and did homage to Louis IX for Gascony, his one remaining
continental possession.
Given the years 1258–9 are amongst the most charged and complex in
English history, I have divided my account between the next three chap-
ters. In this I outline the development of the reforms and consider how the
barons were able to achieve so much. In chapter 2 I discuss baronial
motives and in particular those of Simon de Montfort. Chapter 3 looks at
the place of the king, queen and Lord Edward in the ongoing revolution,
while chapter 4 is about the peace with France.

6 Bémont, Simon de Montfort, 327. I give the names in the order found in the text of the
alliance.
7 For the style ‘Lord Edward’, see volume 1, 503 n. 76.
 h e n ry i i i

JUNE 1258: THE OXFORD PARLIAMENT

The Westminster parliament closed in early May. The Oxford parliament,
where the reforms were to begin, was due to meet on 9 June. In the
interval, Henry went to Winchester, where he celebrated Whitsun, and
then to Clarendon and Marlborough. These were the last days of the old
court. The king had with him the Poitevins William de Sancta Ermina,
Guy de Rochefort, Elyas de Rabayne and, from an older generation, the
keeper of the wardrobe, Peter de Rivallis. All were soon to be swept from
his side – Sancta Ermina, Rochefort and Rabayne indeed swept from
England.
Henry had reason to be apprehensive. At the Westminster parliament,
Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, had demanded the removal of his Poitevin
half-brothers and the surrender of his seal. Henry knew his powers of
patronage would be restricted. On 1 June he promised Alice, widow of
Edmund de Lacy, the wardship of her late husband’s lands on condition
the Oxford parliament agreed.8 Around the same time, the exchequer
official John le Francis acknowledged the chancery might not ‘dare’ issue
the letters he sought ‘on account of the twenty-four’, the twenty-four men,
that is, who were to reform the realm.9 On this point Henry had already
given way. Having agreed to reform at the Westminster parliament, he had
wanted to carry it through himself by Christmas, counselled simply by
unspecified ‘faithful men’ and by a (doubtlessly friendly) papal legate.
Instead, he had accepted reform would be the work ‘as they see best’ of
twenty-four men meeting in June at a parliament in Oxford. Of these
twenty-four he had chosen twelve, but the other twelve were to be chosen
by the opposition barons.10
While at Winchester for Whitsun, Henry bestowed gifts on the local
friars and the prior of the cathedral. Thinking back to Westminster, he
ordered the tomb in the Abbey of his beloved daughter Katherine to be
covered with a silken cloth. At the same time, the paintings both in his
chamber and that of William de Sancta Ermina were to be cleaned.11 Was
Henry also plotting armed resistance with his Poitevin half-brothers?
Certainly Aymer de Lusignan, bishop-elect of Winchester, now asked the
Hampshire knight William de Lisle, ‘since we have special trust in your
fidelity’, to join him at Oxford with horses and arms.12 On 25 May Henry
himself ordered eleven Burgundian knights to be given their pay and sent
on to the Oxford parliament. At the end of the month, the most famous

8
CPR 1247–58, 632. Alice, daughter of the marquis of Saluzzo, was the widow of
Edmund de Lacy, heir to the earldom of Lincoln.
9 TNA SC 1/7/16.
10 See volume 1, 697.
11 CR 1256–9, 222.
12 Gonville and Caius College Cambridge, MS 205, fo. 303v; Sayles, Functions of the

Medieval Parliament, 64.

 revolution and reform 

of Henry’s household knights, Nicholas de Molis, he who had won a war

in Gascony and marched through the length of Wales, suddenly appeared
at court. Already castellan of Dover and sheriff of Kent, he was now
made warden of the Cinque Ports. He was ideally placed to bring foreign
soldiers into the country. Henry’s household knights, combined with the
retinues of William de Valence and Lord Edward, might amount to a
significant force. There was some overlap between the three groups. Roger
of Leybourne, destined to play a vigorous and violent part in events to
come, featured in all three.13
Henry finally left Marlborough on 7 June. On the eleventh he celebrated
the feast of St Barnabas at Abingdon abbey.14 On the twelfth, three days
late, he arrived in Oxford for the opening of the parliament. If he was
reluctant to appear, it was no wonder. The atmosphere was fevered. He
found the barons gathered in the house of the Dominican friars and
already busy drawing up plans for reform.15 They had come in arms, osten-
sibly for the campaign in Wales planned to follow the parliament, in reality
because they feared the king and his ‘Poitevin brothers’ were going to resist
the reforms and were summoning help from abroad. So much is said by
Matthew Paris, the great chronicler at St Albans abbey, now entering the
last phase of his career.16 The fear, as we have seen, had some foundation.
Civil war was close. How Henry must have wished his brother, Richard,
earl of Cornwall, had been around to exercise his usual skills as a moder-
ator and mediator. But Richard was now king of Germany (or king of the
Romans to use his official title) and had been absent from England since
1257. The chronicler Thomas Wykes believed the barons took action in
1258 from fear that king and kingdom would never be guided again by
Richard’s wise counsels.17 That may be an exaggeration, but had Richard
been present the revolution might have taken a different course.
That the campaign in Wales was merely an excuse for a muster in arms
was quickly apparent. As early as 17 June a truce was being arranged with
Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the ruler of Gwynedd, one designed to run all the
way through to August 1259.18 Under its terms, Henry and his men were
permitted to ‘visit’ the castles of Deganwy and Dyserth and send two
boats to munition them. If the sea conditions made that impossible, then

13 Around the time of the Westminster parliament, Leybourne received the Easter
instalment of the 40-mark annual fee he received from the king: TNA E 403/3114.
R.F. Walker, using the evidence from the liberate rolls, states that in 1257 thirty-nine
household knights were in receipt of annual fees: Walker, ‘Anglo-Welsh wars’, 70.
14 Abingdon, 50.
15 Nothing now remains of either the house of the Dominicans or the adjoining house

of the Franciscans, although foundations, partly excavated, survive under the Westgate
shopping centre and adjoining buildings.
16 Paris, v, 695–6; Burton, 438.
17 Wykes, 118.
18 F, i, 372 (CPR 1247–58, 636).
 h e n ry i i i

Llywelyn would allow supplies through from Chester. The truce showed
all too clearly that the Four Cantrefs between the Conwy and the Dee,
conquered by Henry in the 1240s and then given to Lord Edward, were
now almost completely in Llywelyn’s hands. The revolutionary regime just
let that go. Its priority was reform in England. In Wales, it calculated the
marcher barons could look after themselves. The losers from the truce
would be the king and Lord Edward.19 There was no point throwing back
Llywelyn in order to strengthen them.
If all those summoned for the Welsh campaign actually appeared, then
over 130 tenants-in-chief mustered in Oxford, ranging from earls and
barons to men of knightly status.20 Many more knights must have been
present in the retinues of the earls and greater barons. The baronial
leaders, therefore, commanded considerable coercive power. The question
was whether it would outmatch that being rallied by their enemies. The
knights at Oxford were important in another way. Their presence, voicing
the discontent in the shires, ensured reform of local government was
planned from the start. This was not to be just a court coup and a
rearrangement of the king’s council. Thus one set of proposals drawn up
at Oxford for future legislative reform, although called by historians ‘The
Petition of the Barons’, voiced as well the grievances of local society
against the sheriffs and justices in eyre. The Petition also complained that
magnates had oppressed lesser men by buying up the debts that the latter
owed the Jews.21
Another factor affecting the composition of the Oxford parliament
gave the barons the freer rein. This was the absence of the bishops. With
one exception, that of Fulk Basset of London, they were not prepared to
intervene on Henry’s side.22 At the Westminster parliament itself they had
withdrawn rather than do anything to prevent the king’s coercion. Their
abstention was hardly surprising given the church’s sufferings during
Henry’s rule. Apart from the Sicilian taxation, there were resentments
over the king’s interference with the appointment of bishops, his exploita-
tion of vacant sees during the resulting disputes and his challenge to the
church’s jurisdictional privileges, all, so it was said, in breach of Magna
Carta.23 The archbishop of Canterbury, meanwhile, the queen’s uncle

19
Two marchers on the baronial twelve and council of fifteen, the earl of Hereford and
Roger de Mortimer, were not apparently at Oxford. Presumably they were busy in Wales.
20 Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, 157.
21 DBM, no. 3, esp. pp. 86–7, cap. 25.
22 For a full analysis of why the bishops did not join the revolution, see Ambler, Bishops

in the Political Community, ch. 5. Ambler (pp. 108–12) argues convincingly that the bishops did
not promulgate a sentence of excommunication at Oxford against those who opposed the
reforms. Such a sentence was rather promulgated in October 1259 in support of the
Provisions of Westminster.
23 See volume 1, 216, 434–5 (where I discuss how so pious a king could offend the

church), and 460–1.

 revolution and reform 

Boniface of Savoy, far from siding with the king, condoned or at least
accepted the revolution in the hope of besting his Lusignan enemies.
If, however, the bishops gave no help to the king, only Walter de
Cantilupe of Worcester was an out-and-out baronial partisan. When it
came to the church’s grievances, the bishops had decided to go it alone
rather than look to the barons for help. They knew the latter had little
sympathy for their jurisdictional claims. After the Westminster parliament
Archbishop Boniface had convened a church council to meet at Merton in
Surrey on 6 June. It drew up a series of provisions and promulgated
numerous sentences of excommunication against those who violated the
church’s liberties.24 After the council finished on 8 June, very few of those
present seem to have come on to the Oxford parliament. Only the bishops
of Worcester and London were certainly there. A memorandum drawn up
at the parliament about reforms to be promulgated simply said that the
twenty-four would ‘amend the state of the church . . . as soon as they can
find time’.25 They never did. This does not mean churchmen were unen-
thusiastic about the reforms. But, for the moment, they were mostly
outside the episcopal bench. Later this was to change. A new group of
bishops, appointed in and after 1258, was to give passionate support to
Simon de Montfort’s cause.

THE REVIVAL OF THE JUSTICIARSHIP

The first thing done by the Oxford parliament was to appoint a chief
justiciar. So at last the office was revived.26 There had been no justiciar
since 1234, in part because the great council at Gloucester, sweeping away
the remnants of the regime of Peter des Roches, had not filled the post.
The council doubtless remembered the way the justiciar Hubert de Burgh
(in charge of government from 1219 to 1232) had dominated the king and
made a fortune at his expense. Henry himself saw no reason to revive the
office for much the same reason. But gradually, faced with the defects of
his rule, the political community coveted a great official who would hear
everyone’s complaints and give justice to all. Hence the demands at parlia-
ment after parliament in the 1240s and 1250s for the office’s revival.
The person selected as justiciar was Hugh Bigod, a good choice.27 Born
in or before 1220, Hugh was acceptable to the king, or as acceptable as
possible in the circumstances. He was on the council before the revolution

24
C&S, ii, 568–85; Hoskin, ‘Natural law, protest and the English episcopate’, 86.
25 DBM, 106–7, cap. 12.
26 For the office, see volume 1, 453, 459. The documents relating to the provisions drawn

up at Oxford and later in 1258 are discussed in Clementi, ‘The documentary evidence for
the crisis of government in England in 1258’, and Valente, ‘The Provisions of Oxford’.
27 For Hugh, see Hershey, ‘Success or failure?’ Hugh Bigod and judicial reform during

the baronial movement’; Hershey’s introductions to SESK, xxiii–xxxvii, and SERHB, i,

pp. xviii–xxiv; Brand, ‘Hugh Bigod’; and Knowles, ‘The justiciarship in England’.
 h e n ry i i i

and remained on good terms with Henry thereafter. In May, with the king
still a free agent, he helped draw up the replies to the pope’s Sicilian
proposals and was appointed as one of the ambassadors going out to Louis
IX. At Oxford itself Henry’s half of the twenty-four chose him as one of
the electors of the new ruling council. Yet Hugh was absolutely committed
to the revolution. He was part of the original confederation of seven
magnates formed at the Westminster parliament. He was the brother of
Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, and the brother-in-law of John fitzGeoffrey.
Later he appears as an executor of Earl Richard de Clare’s will. His
marriage (by February 1244) to Joan de Stuteville, widow of Baldwin Wake,
made him powerful in his own right. He enjoyed a life interest in Joan’s
baronies of Cottingham in Yorkshire and Liddell Strength in Cumberland.
He also controlled, until the heir, Baldwin, came of age in 1259, the Wake
barony of Bourne in Lincolnshire.28 From his mother, a daughter of the
regent, William Marshal, he had gained Bosham in Sussex. As a member
of the king’s council before 1258, Hugh knew how law and government
worked. He was also a good man of business, having paid off steadily the
10,000-mark fine made by his wife for custody of the lands of her first
husband.29 Matthew Paris applauded Hugh’s appointment. He was ‘a
native of the land of the English’ and a famous knight, skilled in the law,
who would vigorously execute the office of justiciar and uphold the rights
of the realm.30
Although Hugh, in the mode of previous justiciars, came to act as the
king’s chief minister, at Oxford he was given a more specific brief, one
reflecting exactly why parliaments had called for the office’s revival. Hugh
was to remedy the abuses of lesser officials and give justice to everyone. To
render him immune from bribes, he was given a salary of 1,000 marks a
year. ‘It is right that the king should pay his justices . . . sufficiently so that
they have no need to accept anything from anyone else’, declared the plan
of reform.31 The barons certainly expected Hugh to remedy their own
grievances, but at Oxford procedures were also worked out whereby Hugh
could address local grievances as well. So four knights were to be appointed
in each county to sit in the county court and record all complaints against
sheriffs, bailiffs and everyone else. The complaints were to be enrolled

28
Joan was the sole heir of Nicholas II de Stuteville. Baldwin Wake was her heir but,
under English custom, Hugh Bigod had a life interest in the baronies, having a child by
Joan (the future Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk). For Joan and the marriage, see Wilkinson,
‘Reformers and royalists: aristocratic women in politics’, 154–5, 158–9.
29 Joan’s fine for the wardship (and also to marry whom she wished, presumably Hugh)

was made in 1242: CFR 1241–2, no. 105. The regular payments can be traced in the
Yorkshire section of the pipe rolls. Since Hugh’s brother, Roger Bigod, was childless after
many years of marriage, Hugh was heir to the earldom of Norfolk.
30 Paris, v, 698.
31 DBM, 102–3, cap. 6; 106–9, caps. 13, 16; CLR 1251–60, 446. The king had paid salaries

to his senior judges before 1258 and these continued.

 revolution and reform 

hundred by hundred, ready to be heard and determined by Hugh Bigod

on his arrival in the county. This was the first reference to procedure by
‘complaint’, ‘querela’. More than anything else it enabled Hugh Bigod to
right the wrongs that people were suffering.

PLANS TO REFORM THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE

One other local reform planned at Oxford related to the office of sheriff, a
vital issue for local society.32 The sheriff was the king’s chief local agent,
appointed to run a county or group of counties. Answerable to the
exchequer at Westminster, he collected the debts owed the king by individ-
uals and answered every year for a sum of money known as ‘the farm’, a
sum derived largely from the proceeds of pleas in the county and hundreds
courts and from various traditional payments like ‘sheriff ’s aid’. The sheriff
also arrested criminals, summoned juries and executed judicial verdicts. He
employed a large staff of clerks and sergeants and often controlled the
county castle.
The king expected the sheriff above all to look after the interests of the
crown, especially when it came to raising money. He could also stress
(most notably in a speech made in 1250) that the sheriff should treat justly
the people in his charge.33 That of course was very much the view of the
people themselves. The problem was how to strike a balance between the
two responsibilities. In the reforms of 1236 something like that had been
attempted. The sheriffs appointed had been important local knights, just
as the counties wanted. They had been given allowances for their expenses
and sworn an oath not to accept rewards.34 But as the king’s financial
position worsened in the 1240s and 1250s, these standards were not main-
tained.35 The sheriffs, or so it was believed, ceased to be ‘prudent and
knowledgeable knights of their counties’ and were instead ‘men coming
from far away and utter strangers in the counties’.36 Whether they
continued to take the oath of 1236 is unknown.37 They certainly no longer
received expenses, and were made to answer for higher and higher sums
– ‘increments’ – above the traditional county farms.

32 Collingwood, ‘Royal finance’, ch. 3, has a full discussion of the reform of the shrieval

office.
33 See volume 1, 528–30.
34 For the reforms of 1236, see volume 1, 191–2.
35 For discussion of the tensions between the sheriffs’ fiscal accountability at the

exchequer, on the one hand, and their accountability to local communities, on the other,
see Sabapathy, Officers and Accountability, 113–20, 132–4.
36 DBM, 274–7, cap.6. This is the allegation in the statement of the baronial case made

to Louis IX in 1264.
37 Matthew Paris says the oath soon lost its force: Paris, HA, ii, 389. In 1253 there is a

reference to the customary oath taken by the sheriff on entering office but without any
indication of its nature: CR 1251–3, 385. I owe these references to Richard Cassidy.
 h e n ry i i i

The barons at Oxford planned to put this right in ways reminiscent of

the reforms of 1236. So the sheriffs were to be ‘vavasours’ of their shires,
that is, major county knights. The increments were to be abolished and
once again the sheriffs were to receive allowances for their expenses.38 As
a further bar against corruption, they were to hold office only for a year.
Later a new oath of office was devised. None of these proposed reforms
should have been anathema to Henry. Indeed, had he possessed more
drive and sense, he would have carried them through himself before 1258.
It was quite different when it came to the reform of the king’s council.

THE RULING COUNCIL

On 22 June, at Oxford, Henry gave permission for the election of the new
council to proceed.39 Under the agreed procedure, his own twelve chose
the Bigod brothers from the twelve of the barons. The baronial twelve
chose from the king’s twelve the clerk, John Mansel (Henry’s most faithful
councillor), and John de Plessis, earl of Warwick.40 These four now chose
the new council. For Henry the results were disastrous. Nine of the baro-
nial twelve made the council, where they were joined by the queen’s uncles
Archbishop Boniface and Peter of Savoy. From Henry’s twelve only
Mansel and Plessis made the cut.41 The omission of Fulk Basset, bishop
of London, was particularly pointed. ‘A noble man of a great family’ (in
the words of Matthew Paris), Basset was no curial bishop for (with Walter
de Cantilupe) he had vigorously opposed taxation of the church for the
Sicilian project. He had nonetheless, like Cantilupe, returned to the king’s

38 DBM, 108–9, cap. 17. As in 1236, this involved the sheriffs accounting for all the

revenue they received, the amount over and above the farm being termed ‘profit’.
39 CPR 1247–58, 637.
40 For Mansel and Plessis, see volume 1, 219–21.
41 The nine were Walter de Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, Simon de Montfort,

Richard de Clare, Roger Bigod, Humphrey de Bohun, Roger de Mortimer, John fitzGeof-
frey, Peter de Montfort and Richard de Grey. Only William Bardolph, Hugh Despenser
and Hugh Bigod dropped out from the baronial twelve, Hugh Bigod because he was now
chief justiciar. The other two members of the council were William de Forz, earl of
Aumale, and James of Audley. Both were probably unknown quantities as far as Henry was
concerned. Though in receipt of occasional favours (CR 1256–9, 5, 59) neither had been
much at court before the revolution. Forz (lord of Cockermouth and Holderness) had been
sheriff of Cumberland since 1255. He had succeeded his father in 1241 on the payment of
a £100 relief in accordance with Magna Carta, of which 100 marks were pardoned: CFR
1240–1, no. 751; CFR 1241–2, no. 127. For him, see English, Lords of Holderness, 49–53, where
the degree of grievance over the Chester inheritance may be exaggerated. As English says,
perhaps he had a ‘docile nature’. Audley, from a knightly family associated with the earls
of Chester (see volume 1, 72), succeeded his father, Henry, in 1246. In 1252 he was lord of
no fewer than twenty-seven manors in Shropshire and Staffordshire (where Audley itself
was), as well as other properties in Wales and Cheshire: CChR 1226–57, 409. He was, there-
fore, a very powerful magnate. In the civil war he was to support the king. For a biography
of Audley, see Lloyd, ‘James Audley’.
 revolution and reform 

council before the revolution and been prominent at court during the
Oxford parliament. He had every right to be on the new council. But, as
both Matthew Paris and the Tewkesbury annalist recorded, he had doubts
about the revolution so he was out.42 The reason for his opposition is
unknown, but since he was in charge of King Richard’s affairs in England,
perhaps he argued that nothing should be done without Richard’s counsel
and consent.43
That things went so badly for the king was hardly surprising. Henry’s
twelve had far less political weight than the baronial twelve, a mark of his
isolation. John de Plessis, a Norman by birth, had started his career as a mere
household knight and was earl of Warwick simply in right of his wife.44 Only
one fully fledged earl was on Henry’s side, John de Warenne of Surrey. He
had married Henry’s half-sister Alice de Lusignan, and the alliance with the
Lusignans had survived Alice’s death. That was partly because Warenne was
daggers drawn with Peter of Savoy, a man very much ‘in’ with the revolu-
tionary regime as we will see.45 Alongside Warenne, Henry had only one
English magnate on his side, Fulk Basset himself, who, besides being bishop
of London, was head of the High Wycombe branch of the Basset family.
The king had too his twenty-three-year-old nephew, Henry, son of King
Richard (or Henry of Almain as he was generally called), but, unmarried, he
had no resources independent of his absent father. For the rest, the king’s
twelve included three of his Lusignan half-brothers – Aymer, bishop-elect of
Winchester, Guy de Lusignan and William de Valence – and the clerics
Richard of Croxley, abbot of Westminster, John Mansel, Henry of Wingham
(keeper of the seal), and the king’s confessor, John of Darlington.
The baronial twelve had altogether greater weight. They were headed
by Walter de Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, who easily matched Bishop
Basset in terms of status and prestige. There were then four English earls
– Simon de Montfort, Richard de Clare, Humphrey de Bohun (of
Hereford) and Roger Bigod. Next came the great marcher baron Roger
de Mortimer, followed by six substantial English magnates – John fitz­
Geoffrey, Hugh Bigod, William Bardolph, Richard de Grey, Peter de
Montfort and Hugh Despenser, the last three, as we will see, ardent
followers of Simon de Montfort.
Making matters worse, Henry’s twelve had been weakened by the defec-
tion, as he would have seen it, of Richard de Clare. Earl of Gloucester and
Hertford, lord of Glamorgan, with great castles at Clare in Suffolk and

42
Paris, v, 705, 747; Tewkesbury, 165. For the differing stances of Cantilupe and Basset,
see Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community, 118–19. There is a full account of Basset’s
career in Hoskin, EEA, London, xli–li.
43 CR 1256–9, 65. I owe this suggestion to Adrian Jobson.
44 For the circumstances of his marriage, see volume 1, 265–6.
45 Warenne’s quarrel with Peter is illuminated in Spencer, ‘ “A vineyard without a wall” ’,

57–64. For a biography, see Waugh, ‘John de Warenne’.

 h e n ry i i i

Tonbridge in Kent, he was easily the most powerful of the barons at

Oxford. Brought up at court, a leading councillor before the revolution,
and with his son married to a Lusignan, he would surely be on Henry’s
side. Henry certainly thought so. As late as 22 June he named Clare as one
of his twelve.46 He soon found out otherwise. In the surviving lists giving
the names of the twenty-four, Clare appears amongst the baronial twelve
while, doubtless thanks to his defection, Henry’s contingent has only eleven
men.47
Even before the choice of the new council, the king’s supporters were
being edged out from court. At Oxford, royal charters were issued on eight
days between 12 and 21 June. Bishop-elect Aymer, Guy de Lusignan, John
de Warenne and John de Plessis attest none of them. Only on one day
(19 June) do William de Valence and Geoffrey de Lusignan appear.48 For
the rest, aside from Fulk Basset and John Mansel, the court was dominated
by the members of the baronial twelve who were soon to be on the new
ruling council: Bishop Cantilupe, Montfort, Bigod, Clare, Hugh Bigod,
John fitzGeoffrey, Richard de Grey and Peter de Montfort. Peter of Savoy
was there too, evidently, like the queen, a willing partner to the revolution
and soon to be on the ruling council.49
Even worse for Henry than its personnel were the new council’s powers.
They amounted to a complete emasculation of royal authority. It was thus
the councillors not the king who were to choose the justiciar, chancellor
and treasurer, the three most senior officials in the kingdom. For the
reformers, control of the chancellor was pivotal because it was through the
charters, letters and writs he issued in the king’s name and authenticated
with the great seal that England was governed. A chancellor independent
of the king could act as a brake on the king’s irresponsible acts of
patronage. He could also ensure that writs to commence legal actions were
properly issued instead of being denied to those wishing to litigate against
the king’s favourites.50 Ralph de Neville, bishop of Chichester, given the
seal by a great council in 1218 and controlling it for the next twenty years,
was by repute just this type of chancellor. But thereafter the seal had been
held by men, however personally worthy, who had no independent status.
Many were described as king’s clerks rather than chancellors. The office
seemed in abeyance. Hence the demand in the 1240s and 1250s that Henry
allow parliament to choose a chancellor was also a demand for the office’s
revival. In the event, in 1258 the reformers left Henry’s keeper of the seal,

46
CPR 1247–58, 637; DBM, 100–1, caps. 2–3. It is unclear why Geoffrey de Lusignan was
not one of the king’s twelve.
47 DBM, 100–1, cap. 2.
48 William de Sancta Ermina appeared with them.
49 RCWL, ii, 120–1. Fulk Basset heads the witness lists of all the charters issued between

12 and 20 June.
50 Both these points were made in a baronial manifesto of 1264: DBM, 260–3 cap. 9.
 revolution and reform 

Henry of Wingham, in place, but they made it clear he was now a chan-
cellor responsible to and controlled by the ruling council. Under the oath
to be taken, the chancellor was to seal nothing ‘on the sole command of
the king’. Instead, everything going out under the seal, other than routine
writs, would need the council’s consent.51 Another version of the oath
required the council’s consent to grants of wardships, escheats and money.
Henry’s distribution of patronage was thus to come specifically under the
council’s control. Indeed, he could do nothing significant without the
council’s consent.
How long was this regime to last? The answer, a chilling one for
Henry, was a full twelve years.52 When the council’s authority was finally
up, Henry would thus be in his sixties, an age reached by only one king
(Henry I) since the Norman Conquest. He was quite likely never to rule
unfettered again.

THE PLACE OF PARLIAMENT

The reformers did not envisage ruling alone in oligarchical isolation. For
the first time in English history, a defined role was given to parliament.53
It was to meet three times a year ‘to view the state of the realm and deal
with the common business of the realm and the king together’. So Henry
had now lost the power to convene and dismiss parliament whenever he
wished. The fifteen councillors were of course to attend the parliaments.
Also to be there were twelve men now chosen by the barons. These were
to treat of ‘the common business . . . on behalf of the whole community
of the land’. (It was to this committee of twelve that Fulk Basset was
relegated.)54 The idea here was to spare the general body of magnates the
cost of having to turn up thrice annually, while at the same time ensuring
everyone was bound by parliament’s decisions. (It was stated specifically
that the ‘community’ was to accept whatever the twelve decided.) This did
not mean that parliament would simply consist of the fifteen and the
twelve. It was the minimum requirement. Almost certainly, the general
body of tenants-in-chief continued to be summoned as before.

51 DBM, 102–3, cap. 7; 106–7, cap. 15. Wingham took the oath ‘before the barons of

England’ on 28 June: CR 1256–9, 315–16. Before 1258 he had sometimes been called chan-
cellor but was often just styled the king’s ‘clerk’, see volume 1, 616.
For Henry III’s chancellors and keepers, see Dibben, ‘Chancellor and keeper of the
seal’, 39–51. An important new study of Henry III’s chancery is found in Adam Chambers’
doctoral thesis, ‘Aspects of chancery procedure in the chancery rolls of Henry III’.
Another doctoral thesis by Andrew Kourris is forthcoming.
52 This is clear from the oath taken by the new castellans mentioned below, 14.
53 Maddicott, Origins of the English Parliament, 238–9.
54 In another version they are to be chosen by ‘the community’: DBM, 104–5, cap. 10;

110–11, cap. 21. The council’s personnel were listed both in the chancery and the
exchequer: CR 1256–9, 473–4; TNA E 368/35, m. 4d (image 5659).
 h e n ry i i i

One striking fact emerges from the parliamentary constitution now

envisaged. The barons still thought ‘the community’ could be represented
by twelve magnates chosen by themselves.55 In this revolutionary period,
knights were assigned a major role in the reform of local government, but
they were not to attend parliament as representatives of their counties.
Here ‘1258’ still looked back to 1215 where Magna Carta’s assembly giving
consent to taxation was largely baronial in its membership and lacked any
representative element.56

CONTROL OF CASTLES AND THE OXFORD OATH

The reformers were concerned with constitutional forms. They were
equally concerned with physical power. In 1215 the barons had left King
John in command of his castles. The mistake was not repeated in 1258, an
indication of how much more complete was the king’s collapse.57 At the
parliament, a set of new keepers were appointed who all took an oath not
to surrender their castles without the council’s consent. (It was this oath
which revealed that the council’s authority was to last for a full twelve
years.)58 Important castles were entrusted to leading members of the
regime – so the Tower went to Hugh Bigod, Dover to Richard de Grey,
Bridgenorth to Peter de Montfort, Nottingham to William Bardolph,
Northampton to Ralph Basset of Sapcote (a follower of Simon de
Montfort) and Winchester to Simon de Montfort himself.59
The power and purpose of the new regime was underpinned by an
oath taken by all present at the Oxford parliament: ‘the oath of the
community of England at Oxford’, as it was called. The oath bound
everyone to help each other against all comers. It also, setting the stand-
ards for future conduct, bound everyone to act justly and take nothing that
could not be taken without doing wrong. All this was to be saving faith to
the king and the crown, an indication, ominous for Henry, that loyalty
to the crown (and kingdom) might be separate from that owed to any
individual king. The oath was modelled on the one sworn by the seven
baronial leaders when they confederated together at the Westminster
parliament. But there was one crucial extra clause, designed both to

55
The twelve consisted of a bishop, Fulk Basset of London (a baron in his own right),
an earl, nine magnates and one knight.
56 In the 1215 Magna Carta only tenants-in-chief were summoned to the assembly with

only greater barons (lay and ecclesiastical) receiving a personal summons, the lesser
tenants-in-chief being summoned generally through the sheriffs. However, as John
Maddicott first showed, many of the lesser tenants-in-chief were of knightly status:
Maddicott, ‘ “An infinite multitude of nobles” ’.
57 For the importance of castles in this period, see Oakes, ‘King’s men without the king’.
58 TNA E 159/ 32. m.1 (image 0003), a special schedule attached to the exchequer’s

memoranda roll; and see DBM, 258–9, cap. 2.

59 CPR 1247–58, 637–9, 654; DBM, 112–13, cap. 24.
 revolution and reform 

deter opposition and justify, if necessary, the use of brute force. Anyone
contravening the oath was to be treated as a mortal enemy. That meant
they could be attacked and killed.60 This went far beyond the oath of 1215.
Then ‘the commune of all the land’ had sworn to support twenty-five
barons in enforcing Magna Carta if the king sought to break it. But the
methods envisaged had simply been the seizure of his lands and castles.
No reference was made to treating opponents as ‘mortal enemies’. ‘The
notion of mortal enmity was pervasive in medieval society.’61 But it was
one thing for it to envenom feuds between individuals, quite another for it
to underpin a national political programme. This was sensationally new.
The extreme violence now envisaged reflected the extreme importance of
the programme and the extreme anxiety about attempts to oppose it. In
1263 the ‘mortal enmity’ clause in the oath was used to justify the violence
beginning the civil war. It was with a shrewd eye that, looking back, the
chronicler Thomas Wykes identified ‘mortal enmity’ as the part of the
Provisions that polluted all the rest.62

THE EXPULSION OF THE LUSIGNANS

If things went badly for Henry at Oxford, they went even worse for his
Lusignan half-brothers. They were excluded, as we have seen, from the
council of fifteen. They were also threatened with material loss. This
stemmed from a proposal that the lands and castles Henry had given away
should be resumed into his hands. Presented as a way of curing the king’s
poverty, in reality this was aimed at the Lusignans and in particular at
William de Valence. Apart from Henry’s brother, the conveniently absent
King Richard, William had received far more land from the king than
anyone else. Faced with this threat, the half-brothers swore ‘by the death
and wounds of Christ’ to surrender nothing given them by the king. That
just raised the stakes. ‘Either you surrender your castles or you lose your
head,’ Simon de Montfort spat at William de Valence.63 To prove his own
virtue, Montfort added that he would return Kenilworth and Odiham
castles to the king despite all the money he had spent upon them.
Under this pressure, the Lusignans’ nerve broke. Towards the end of
June, while breakfast was being prepared, they fled from Oxford to
Winchester, where they took refuge in Aymer’s castle of Wolvesey. The
barons broke up the Oxford parliament and hurried in pursuit, taking the

60
DBM, 100–1, cap. 4; Bémont, Simon de Montfort, 327–8; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort,
153. For the oaths of 1258, see Hey, ‘Two oaths of the community’.
61 Hyams, Rancor and Reconciliation, 59, and 253–4 for the role of ‘mortal enmity’ in the

period of reform and rebellion. Ch. 8 as a whole asks ‘Was there an enmity culture in
thirteenth-century England?’, with the conclusion that there was.
62 Wykes, 119–20.
63 Paris, v, 697–8.
 h e n ry i i i

king with them. They surrounded the castle and demanded that all four
brothers leave the kingdom. At this point Henry at last intervened. Hoping
they would thereby be allowed to stay, he offered to guarantee his brothers’
acceptance of the baronial provisions. The intervention paid more tribute
to his heart than his head. It was foolish to link himself to his brothers’
hopeless cause. In the event, the barons said Aymer and William (with
their larger stake in the country) could stay but only as prisoners until
reform was completed. Guy and Geoffrey de Lusignan were still to leave
immediately. Not surprisingly, allowed to take some of their wealth, the
brothers decided to depart together. Letters giving them a safe conduct
were issued on 6 July. On 18 July they crossed to Boulogne. According to
Matthew Paris, Louis IX refused to allow them to stay in France, having
heard from his queen how they had ‘enormously diffamed and slandered’
her sister. How Eleanor must have rejoiced at their departure. These
events ended any further resistance. John de Warenne had fled with the
Lusignans from Oxford. He now submitted. So did Lord Edward.

EDWARD AND THE REVOLUTION

In the 1320s, the heir to the throne, the future Edward III, was to be the
titular leader of the revolt against his father, the hapless Edward II. In
1258, had circumstances been different, Lord Edward might have played
a similar if more active role. Later he was indeed to join forces with Simon
de Montfort. But Edward, much to his mother’s dismay, was now allied
with the king’s half-brothers, the very men the barons were hunting down.
In June 1258 itself he tried to place Gascony and the isle of Oléron under
none other than Geoffrey and Guy de Lusignan.64
At the time of the revolution, Edward was just short of nineteen years
old. Over 6 feet tall, with his blonde hair and big chin, he was a striking
figure.65 Having already shown his martial prowess in tournaments, he was
a very different proposition from his pacific father. Potentially too he
commanded vast resources. He held Chester, Bristol and numerous
English manors. He was the immediate ruler of Gascony and of the king’s
territories in Wales and Ireland. In the government of Gascony he had
already shown a vigour quite foreign to his father.66 Not surprisingly,
therefore, the barons were just as keen to control him as they were the
king. Indeed, the council’s twelve-year term might well carry its authority
into Edward’s reign. Back at the Westminster parliament, Edward had

64 CPR 1247–58, 639, 664; CR 1256–9, 319; Ridgeway, ‘The Lord Edward and the

Provisions of Oxford’, 89.

65 The big chin appears in several contemporary images of Edward, see Prestwich,

Edward I, plates 2, 18, 20.

66 Billaud, ‘Similarities and differences’, 96. Edward’s resources are fully discussed in

Wait, ‘Household and resources of the Lord Edward’.

 revolution and reform 

sworn to accept the coming reforms, but as he came to see the implica-
tions for himself, he had every reason to change his mind. The baronial
failure to do anything about the Welsh conquest of the Four Cantrefs
provided another motive for doing so.67 Yet Edward’s own resistance soon
fizzled out. On 10 July he issued a letter promising to accept the baronial
reforms. The keepers of his lands and castles were now to be chosen by
the council of fifteen. His appointment of the Lusignans to run Gascony
was cancelled. He was also given four councillors, his chancellor swearing
to seal nothing without their agreement.68 It seemed he was to be just as
much controlled by the regime as was his father.

THE FAILURE OF RESISTANCE

Given these extraordinary changes, so detrimental, so disastrous for the
king, his half-brothers and his son, why had they failed to make common
cause against them? After all, they had evidently made some preparations
to do so. The answer lies in the facts of power. The baronial side was by far
the stronger and had evidently mustered at Oxford greatly superior forces.
The Lusignans had also to contend with the general hostility to foreigners
sweeping through the parliament. The Petition of the Barons, the proposals
for reform drawn up at Oxford, thus defined disparagement in marriage as
marriage to those ‘who are not of the nation of the kingdom of England’,
an obvious attack on the many marriages to the king’s foreign favourites
arranged before 1258.69 The Petition also demanded that royal castles be
committed to men ‘born of the kingdom of England’. A newsletter,
describing events at the parliament, added that nearly all of the castles had
previously ‘been in the hands of foreigners’, an exaggeration but it showed
what was thought.70 Hostility to foreigners was even expressed at the heart
of the administration. So the clerk writing up the chancery rolls described
Henry’s order summoning Burgundian knights to Oxford as ‘concerning
knights of an alien race (alieni generis) coming to England’.71
As for any co-operation between Henry and Edward, here there was
another problem. Father and son had fallen out. The annals of Winchester

67 The Welsh dimension is stressed in Burt, Edward I and the Governance of England, 57–8,

77–8.
68 Richardson and Sayles, ‘The Provisions of Oxford’, 320, cap. 26; 321, cap. 30; DBM,

94–5. The councillors were John de Balliol, John de Grey, Stephen Longespée and Roger
of Mold.
69 DBM, 80–1, caps. 4, 6.
70 DBM, 80–1, cap. 4; 90–1. The Petition added that castles guarding ports should be

entrusted to Englishmen given the dangers arising from them being in the hands of
‘others’: DBM, 80–1, cap. 5. The Poitevin, Elyas de Rabayne, was accordingly deprived of
Corfe.
71 CR 1256–9, 223–4, 297. The note itself was routine, all chancery letters in the rolls

having a marginal note describing their content.

 h e n ry i i i

speak of their ‘discord’ and how they were eventually reconciled in the
Winchester chapter house. Since this was in July, the reconciliation took
place very much under baronial auspices. Quite probably, egged on by the
barons, Henry had resented the way Edward had placed Gascony under
the Lusignans without his assent. His interference in Edward’s appanage
had always been a source of friction.72 The quarrel may also reflect how
Henry was far readier than his son to bow down before the baronial
regime. Events might have been very different had there been real leader-
ship from the top. Nicholas de Molis, head of the household knights in any
resistance, drew his own conclusions. Although removed from Dover
castle, he agreed to become castellan of Rochester.73
At Runnymede, in the days leading up to the promulgation of
Magna Carta, King John had bargained hard with the barons and
secured significant concessions.74 There is no sign Henry did the same at
Oxford. Indeed, until his futile intervention on behalf of the Lusignans,
he gives no sign of activity at all. Perhaps his interventions were just
brushed aside. Or had he simply given up? According to a baronial
letter to the pope, he ignored bishop-elect Aymer’s pleas to make a stand.
Henry not merely arrived late for the parliament. He also seems, during
its course, to have retired to Woodstock. The Burton annalist says he
was there when the Petition of the Barons was drawn up. We can think of
him perhaps, brooding in the cloisters beside the pools of Everswell (the
retreat close to Woodstock palace), while his fate was decided ten miles
away in the Dominicans’ house in Oxford.75 The London chronicler
Arnold fitzThedmar has Henry accepting the reforms at Oxford ‘unwill-
ingly’, surely, in one mood, the case. Yet Matthew Paris thought he went
along ‘willingly, gratanter’.76 Perhaps the king was frightened by what might
happen if he resisted. He had after all, confronted by the march on
Westminster Hall, thought for a moment he was a prisoner. Perhaps he
remembered the war which had followed his father’s rejection of Magna
Carta. Perhaps he still hoped the reforms would indeed produce the taxa-
tion for Sicily vaguely promised by the barons. At Oxford twenty-four men
were ‘appointed by the community to treat of a tax for the king’. The

72 Winchester, 97. The friction is a major theme in Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and King

Henry III’ and see Ridgeway, ‘King Henry III’s grievances against the council’, 240, cap.
20.
73 DBM, 112–13, cap. 24.
74 Carpenter, Magna Carta, 342–3.
75 Burton, 438. For Henry going to Woodstock, see also Winchester, 97. However, the

chancery remained in Oxford for no royal letters were witnessed at Woodstock.

76 FitzThedmar, 37 (Stone, FitzThedmar, no. 710); Paris, v, 696, where ‘graviter’ in the

printed text is a mistake for ‘gratanter’. In my footnotes, references such as FitzThedmar, 37

(Stone, FitzThedmar, no. 710), refer first to the old Thomas Stapleton edition and second
to Ian Stone’s forthcoming new edition of fitzThedmar’s book to be published in the
Oxford Medieval Texts series.
 revolution and reform 

reformers were making some effort to reconcile Henry to what had

happened.77

THE COURSE OF REFORM, JULY 1258–NOVEMBER 1259

In the year and a half from July 1258 a vigorous and valiant effort was
made to implement the local reforms planned at the Oxford parliament.
Four knights in each county investigated local abuse. The justiciar, Hugh
Bigod, began to hear the resulting cases as well as complaints brought
before him by individuals. Sheriffs became county knights, took an oath to
behave justly and held office on new financial terms. The baronial leaders
accepted that their officials, as much as those of the king, must be subject
to reform. Legislation, known to later historians as the Provisions of
Westminster, dealt with the malpractices of the sheriffs, the justices in eyre
and, going beyond anything contemplated at Oxford, limited the jurisdic-
tion of private baronial courts.78 Henry’s own role in this new dawn is
analysed later in chapter 3. Here we outline the reforms themselves.

THE COUNCIL TAKES CONTROL

Having expelled the Lusignans, the regime moved to secure the allegiance
of London. On 23 July a group of councillors, headed by Roger Bigod,
Simon de Montfort and John fitzGeoffrey, came to the Guildhall and
obtained an oath from the mayor and aldermen to accept the reformers’
provisions.79 By this time, the work of the twenty-four (in reality the bar­­
onial twelve with one or two from the king’s side) was done. The body
ceased to exist. Instead, the council of fifteen moved centre stage. Its
authority was explained and affirmed by a great proclamation, witnessed
by nearly all the councillors and issued in the king’s name at the October
parliament of 1258.80 Henry thus commanded everyone to take an oath to
obey the council’s ‘establishments’ and aid each other in so doing against
all comers. Anyone acting contrary to the oath was to be treated as a mortal
enemy. The threat embodied in the original oath taken by those present at
Oxford thus now appeared in an oath to be taken by everyone in the realm.
The proclamation was given maximum publicity. Whereas previous
custom was for government documents to be issued in Latin, this one was
issued in both French and English as well. The three versions were sent to
every county. The English version was a dramatic innovation, being the
first royal document to be written in English since soon after the Norman
Conquest. The purpose was clear. The regime wished to reach out to the

77 DBM, 104–7, cap. 11.

78
For these courts, see below, 641 (The Glossary, under ‘honourial court’).
79 FitzThedmar, 38 (Stone, FitzThedmar, no. 714).
80 DBM, 116–19.
 h e n ry i i i

great bulk of the population, reach out to the freemen, peasants and
townsmen for whom English was the only language. The French version
also had a purpose. The earls, barons and knights of thirteenth-century
England were bilingual, trilingual if they had some Latin. English they
could use to address the lower orders. It was also gradually intermingling
with French as a language they used amongst themselves. But French
remained the language of business, culture and conversation, hence it was
in French that treatises of estate management were written and unofficial
translations of Magna Carta circulated. In 1258 the regime wanted
nothing unofficial. It was determined to get its message across and hence
provided its own French translation of the Latin text.81 Its authority was
to be known and be upheld by everyone in the realm.
The council did not form a separate executive. Instead, it worked
through the king, issuing letters in his name and authenticating them with
his seal. All the indications are that, in essentials, it took over the govern-
ment of the country. In the chancery rolls between July 1258 and October
1259 over 150 letters were issued on the authority of ‘the council’ or ‘the
magnates who are of the king’s council.’ By contrast, between July 1258
and August 1259, the king authorized but two letters on his own, one letter
with the justiciar, one with another minister and one with the council.82
This picture of an emasculated king is confirmed by a newsletter sent out
to Provence in 1259. ‘The state of England’, the writer declared, ‘is such
that the king has no power of doing anything without the counsel of the
twelve barons’, meaning here clearly the council of fifteen. ‘These take
counsel and deliberate without the king on whatever pleases them on
affairs either side of the sea, saving however on some great matters where
they wish to honour the king or where it is necessary to have the consent
of the king and his son, Lord Edward.’83
Since the council worked through the king, its members or some of
them needed to be at court. This was easier to achieve because Henry’s
itinerary for much of 1258–9 had the same ‘home counties’ aspect as
before the revolution. Indeed, in 1259, prior to leaving for France in
November, he spent 168 days at Westminster. At the time of the parlia-
ments, probably nearly all the fifteen came together. The great proclama-

81 For bilingualism see Short, ‘Bilingualism in Anglo-Norman England’, and Crane,

‘Social aspects of bilingualism in the thirteenth century’. For the use of French, see Wogan-
Browne et al., Language and Culture in Medieval Britain; Fenster and Collette, The French of
Medieval England; Brand, ‘The languages of the law in later medieval England’.
82 The great majority of the letters have no authorization note at all. They were issued

on the authority of the chancellor who, as we have seen, was controlled by the regime.
83 The letter is now preserved in the Archives des Bouches-du-Rhône in Marseilles. It is

printed in Villard, ‘Autour de Charles d’Anjou’, 34–5, no. 5. I am grateful to Nicholas

Vincent for drawing the letter to my attention along with other remarkable material in the
Marseilles archives. Vincent has also sent me his transcriptions of the originals which
correct mistakes and omissions in the versions printed by Villard.
 revolution and reform 

tion of October 1258 was witnessed by fourteen of them, headed by

Archbishop Boniface. At parliament too, there is evidence the twelve
magnates representing the community were also present.
Alongside the councillors, the effective head of the government soon
became Hugh Bigod. Despite absences hearing pleas in the counties, he
spent a great deal of time at court, where he dealt with a whole range of
business and presided over the court coram rege.84 In the chancery rolls
between July 1258 and October 1259 he authorized over ninety royal
letters, far more than anyone else, acting occasionally with the council, in
the very great majority of cases alone.
At the start of the revolution, the council had secured control over the
seal and, through Hugh Bigod, the law courts. In November 1258 it
gripped the exchequer, replacing Henry’s treasurer, Philip Lovel, with
Master John of Crakehall, a man of very different stamp.85 John had been
for many years the steward of Robert Grosseteste, the great scholar bishop
of Lincoln, and had responsibility for running the episcopal estates.
Present at Grosseteste’s death, he had told Matthew Paris all about it. His
brief now was to reform the exchequer and help ensure the revenues of
the kingdom were paid there, instead of going direct to the king’s ward-
robe.86 To ensure his probity, he was given a salary of 100 marks a year,
the first treasurer of the exchequer to receive one.87
Henry later observed that the kingdom was governed by three things:
‘the law of the land, the great seal and the exchequer’.88 The regime now
controlled all three. It also controlled the king’s household. On 8 July 1258,
at Winchester, ‘by provision of the barons’, Peter de Rivallis was removed
as keeper of the wardrobe. This was a key position since the wardrobe,
travelling with the king, provided the money for his food, drink, stables
and almsgiving. It also financed both purchases of cloth and precious
objects and payment of fees and wages. In time of war it bought muni-
tions and hired soldiers, its expenditure thus vastly increasing. Much of the
wardrobe’s money (absorbing a large proportion of the crown’s annual
revenue) came from the exchequer, but the wardrobe also drew directly on
local revenues, something the reformers, as mentioned, hoped to stop.89
Although Peter de Rivallis was replaced by his deputies, the clerks Aubrey
de Fécamp and Peter of Winchester, they were now subject to the baronial
regime.90 Whereas, in the past, Henry had been able to use his wardrobe

84
Hershey, ‘Success or failure?’, 83–4.
85
CPR 1247–58, 1; Paris, v, 719–20. For his career, see Jobson, ‘John of Crakehall’.
86 DBM, 107, cap. 14; 260–1, cap. 8, and see below, 36.
87 CLR 1251–60, 475.
88 DBM, 236–9, cap. 28.
89 The classic study of the wardrobe under Henry III remains that in Tout, Chapters, i,

ch. vi. Its accounts at the exchequer have now been edited for the Pipe Roll Society by
Benjamin Wild: Wild, WA.
90 Wild, WA, cxxxi, 87, 102; Tout, Chapters, i, 298–9.
 h e n ry i i i

money just as he liked, now its expenditure was controllable by the

council. Another significant change took place at the level of the stewards,
the officials who were at the head of the royal household. Here a
completely new man appeared, Giles de Argentan, a knight hitherto quite
out of favour.91 He was to become a staunch Montfortian. The court was
also purged of the Poitevin knights Elyas de Rabayne, Guy de Rochefort
and William de Sancta Ermina – William who had stood behind Henry at
table, towel on arm, and carved his meat. All three were expelled from the
kingdom. Together the three exemplified complaints about foreigners
receiving too much patronage, holding royal castles, being foisted on heir-
esses and behaving in an oppressive and lawless fashion.92

THE JUSTICIAR’S EYRE

While it was cleansing court and country of the Poitevins, the regime
moved to fulfil the promises of local reform made at Oxford. By the end
of July 1258 the four knights who were to investigate the abuses in each
county had been chosen and writs went out setting them to work.93 In the
scheme drawn up at Oxford, the knights were to hear ‘all complaints’ and
make a written record ready for Hugh Bigod’s arrival. Now, however,
there was a significant change of plan. Instead of the knights handing over
their records to the justiciar, they were to present them to the council at
Westminster on 6 October (the point at which parliament was scheduled
to begin). This was sensible. It recognized the justiciar could not possibly
hear all the cases by October, and gave the council a view of the griev-
ances in the shires. There was also a change in how the knights were to
proceed. Instead of sitting in the county court and hearing individual
complaints, they were to carry out their investigations according to a set
of questions, most of them drawn from the inquiries of before 1258. The
answers were to be given on oath by ‘trusted and law-worthy men’, knights

91 DBM, 104–7, cap. 11; CR 1256–9, 243. While the stewards William de Grey and the

Savoyard Imbert Pugeys, remained in post after the revolution, Robert Walerand (although
still employed by the new regime) was rarely at court. Giles was the son of the distinguished
knight Richard de Argentan, sometime steward of the royal household. The family held the
manor of Great Wymondley in Hertfordshire by the service of bearing a silver cup at coro-
nations. Three silver cups were proudly displayed on their coat of arms: Rolls of Arms, Henry
III, 43. Active from the 1230s, Giles failed to follow his father at court. For his grievance over
not recovering the manors of Lilley and Willian, next door to Great Wymondley, see CRR,
xv, no. 1758; CChR 1226–57, 276; volume 1, 126, 131; CIM, nos. 707, 711. For a biography, see
Ridgeway, ‘Sir Giles d’Argentine’.
92 Rabayne had held Corfe and Rochefort, Colchester: Ray, ‘Alien courtiers of thir-

teenth-century England’, ch. 8; Ridgeway, ‘The politics of the English royal court’,
237, 299–300; Ridgeway, ‘Dorset in the period of baronial reform’, 23; and volume 1,
556–7.
93 For the argument that the knights were elected locally, hence the delay before they

were commissioned, see SESK, xxxix–xli (Hershey’s introduction).

 revolution and reform 

and others, assembled in juries from the hundreds into which counties
were divided.94 The returns for one hundred (Loes in Suffolk) survive.95
This change too was sensible. While plaintiffs could bring cases direct to
Bigod, as many did, it was above all through the evidence of the hundredal
juries, receiving both individual and communal complaints, that the
malpractices of officials would be brought to light.
While awaiting the returns of the knights, Bigod decided to show his
face in the counties. In late July, leaving the king at Westminster, he jour-
neyed to Northampton, where the sheriffs had earned an evil reputation.96
Then, in August and September, this time with the king, he travelled as far
north as Nottingham and Lincoln. The great majority of the cases coming
before him were routine assizes, but he also heard complaints from a wide
variety of people.97 Those accused (not always successfully) included the
bishop of London, the sheriffs of Surrey and Lincoln, two sheriffs of
Northampton and the bailiffs both of William de Sancta Ermina and the
earl of Gloucester.98 While Bigod and the king were at Nottingham, the
poor men of Grimsby complained about the wrongs they had suffered at
the hands of richer merchants. The result was the immediate dispatch of
Bigod’s colleague, the judge Gilbert of Preston, to the town. There he
heard the complaints and secured agreement to a series of reforms. In
early November these were confirmed by the king and council in a letter
authorized by ‘Hugh Bigod, justiciar of England’.99
At the Westminster parliament in October 1258, knights from at least
fifteen counties came with the results of their investigations.100 By this time
there was considerable impatience with the pace of local reform. Had the
knights been working on just another inquiry, like so many in the past,
from which nothing would come? Was the justiciar ever going to tour the

94 DBM, 114–15. The writ setting up the four knights just said they were to inquire

throughout their counties by the oaths of law-worthy men. It is evident from Bigod’s rolls
that the questions were put to juries from each hundred: SESK, p. 1, and no. 54, and
SERHB, ii, p. 43.
95 TNA SC 5/9/5/9. The roll, carefully transcribed by E.F. Jacob, is printed in full in his

Studies, 337–44. I thank Paul Dryburgh for locating the modern reference to the roll at
TNA.
96 In ch. 3 I give a full account of the evidence from the eyres of Hugh Bigod and his

colleagues between 1258 and 1260.

97 Apart from John fitzGeoffrey, the complainants included the abbot of Cerne, the

knight Stephen de Chenduit, the bailiffs of Southampton, the men of Walthamstow and
Chingford, ‘many men of the city of London’, a widow from the king’s manor of
Havering, a London widow, a ‘poor’ widow from Ketton in Rutland and the villein
sokeman on the king’s manor of Brill in Buckinghamshire. In Bigod’s first roll (no longer
complete), recording cases between June and September with some more in late December,
he heard 238 civil pleas and 46 complaints: Hershey, ‘Success or failure?’, 86–7.
98 SERHB, i, nos. 5, 17, 23, 28, 33, 41, 67, 98, 111, 161, 166, 308, 365.
99 SERHB, i, nos. 373–9; CChR 1257–1300, 14–16. For the whole episode, see Hershey,

‘Baronial reform, the justiciar’s court and commercial legislation’, and SERHB, i, pp. xlix–lvii.
100 CR 1256–9, 332–3; Treharne, Baronial Plan, 115–16.
 h e n ry i i i

kingdom to hear the cases they had recorded? So far, he had only heard
complaints from individuals.101
Faced with this discontent, on 18 October the council, in the king’s
name, issued a great proclamation, one known by historians as the
Ordinance of the Sheriffs. Again the letter was written in three languages,
Latin, French and English, and was to be read in the county courts. Once
again the regime was determined to get its message across. The proclama-
tion announced the king’s wish that all wrongs should indeed be reported
to the four knights.102 If they could not be redressed as fast as the king
wished, that should cause no surprise (evidently it had). Things had gone
wrong for so long that they could not speedily be put right. But there was
hope. The justiciar and ‘other good men’ would be coming to give redress.
This time something more was done. In November and December,
Hugh Bigod went to Bermondsey to hear pleas for Surrey; in January 1259
he was at Canterbury hearing those for Kent. Although assizes still came
before him, they were outnumbered by the cases arising from the testimony
of the four knights and the hundredal juries. There were 91 of the former
and 117 of the latter. So at last the work of the knights was bearing fruit. At
the same time Bigod continued to hear individual complaints. Of these
there were 113. In both counties, sheriffs and other royal officials were
targeted. Targeted too were the officials of magnates, including those of
Aymer, Guy and Geoffrey de Lusignan, Boniface and Peter of Savoy, the
earl of Gloucester, William de Say and Richard de Grey. The punishments
meted out were severe, indeed too severe in the view of the London
alderman and chronicler Arnold fitzThedmar. In Surrey, Bigod ‘not only
amerced many bailiffs, but imprisoned them, clerk and lay; and from some
he exacted fines of 20 marks, from some 40 marks and more, and many for
small offences he burdened beyond measure’.103 There was in all this a
striking difference between Bigod’s eyre and the visitations before 1258. In
Surrey and Kent, officials who had sailed unscathed through the eyre of
1255 were now punished while jurors silent then about abuses now opened
their mouths.104 Above all, for the first time, thanks to the action by querela,
plaintiffs secured compensation for their sufferings.

THE ACTION BY QUERELA

Fundamental to Hugh Bigod’s eyres was the action by complaint, querela.
It was not new. Complaints are found occasionally in manorial and baro-

101 Paris says, however, that the demands of the harvest reduced the number of

complaints: Paris, v, 710.

102 This suggests the four knights had remained in being and could still carry out

inquiries.
103 FitzThedmar, 39 (Stone, FitzThedmar, no. 717).
104 For punishments and the opening of mouths, see below, 139, 144.
 revolution and reform 

nial courts as well as in the court coram rege, the courts of the exchequer
and the justices in eyre.105 What was completely new was the sheer volume
of querelae coming before the justiciar. His court had been opened up to
complainants in a way not seen before. Whereas before the government
had given no encouragement to complaints, now through the inquiries of
the knights and Bigod’s promised arrival, it was positively inviting them.
Why then did people accept the invitation? What explains the utility and
popularity of the procedure? The answer lies in four characteristics.
First, the subject matter of the complaint. Here there were restrictions.
It was not possible to proceed by querela in matters concerning right and
possession. These needed to be pleaded by writ according to the forms of
the common law.106 But this did little to detract from the value of the querela.
The common law assizes worked well, especially novel disseisin with its
speedy remedy for those deprived of free tenements ‘unjustly and without
judgement’. Many such cases came before Hugh Bigod. Complaints, by
contrast, were concerned ‘with trespasses and injuries, de transgressionibus et
iniuriis’, as it was put during the Oxford parliament.107 What was meant
here is clear from the complaints themselves. They covered such matters as
violence to person, false imprisonment and, again and again, seizure of
crops and farm animals, often by way of distraint. In many cases such
actions were described as taking place ‘by force of arms in breach of the
king’s peace’, and these words were to become standard in later actions of
trespass. But, a blessing of the eyres, Bigod made no stand on forms and
heard many cases where such words were not employed.108 Indeed, the
trespasses and injuries often covered various forms of extortion, or alleged
extortion, where no actual violence had taken place.109
Second, the targets. From the word go, complaints were expected against
the sheriffs and bailiffs of the king. During the course of 1259 the regime
made clear that magnates and their officials could be aimed at too. It was
local officials, royal and seigneurial, who more than anyone else were guilty
of the excesses and injuries outlined above. A speedy and effective means
of redress was desperately needed and the action by querela provided it.
That was partly, a third point, thanks to the ease of the procedure.
Many of the abuses complained about on the eyres could have been

105
For discussion of the origin and processes of procedure by querela, see Richardson and
Sayles’ introduction to SCWR; Jacob, Studies, 65–70; Hershey, ‘Justice and bureaucracy’,
843–51, and SERHB, i, pp. xxvi–vii. For examples in manorial and honourial courts, see
SPMC, 7, 21, 53, 56, 65–6.
106 For the distinction, see SCWR, 125; SERHB, ii, nos. 508–9.
107 DBM, 98–9, cap. 1; and 160–3, caps. 2, 7.
108 A point made in Hershey, ‘Justice and bureaucracy’, 844–5.
109 The government itself did not stick to ‘de transgressionibus et iniuriis’. It also referred to

‘les torz’ (wrongs) and to complaints ‘de omnimodis excessibus’ and ‘de aliquo gravamine’: DBM,
112–15, 118–19, 162–3, cap. 7. Occasionally Bigod allowed property to be recovered as a
by-product of a querela action, for example, SCWR, 127–8.
 h e n ry i i i

tackled via actions of trespass commenced by writs. A writ could also be

obtained to order the sheriff to return chattels unjustly seized. But here
there were problems. One was the bother and expense of going to the
chancery, itinerating as it did with the king, to get the writ. Another was
the suspicion a writ might be difficult to obtain if aimed at a favourite of
the king. With querelae, by contrast, there was no need for a writ.110
Complaints could be made directly to the four knights and the hundredal
jurors and also directly to Bigod himself.111 There is some evidence that
complaints were sometimes made through a written ‘bill’, but many may
simply have been oral.112 There was also, on Bigod’s eyre, the intention of
settling the cases on the spot, for sufficient knights and law-worthy men
were to be there before him to give their verdicts.113 The complainants had
the prospect of immediate redress.
Redress. We now come, fourthly, to a cardinal feature of procedure by
querela, indeed its chief attraction for plaintiffs. This was the prospect, if
the jury came down in their favour, of immediate redress either through
the restoration of what had been taken or the payment of damages, or
both. The claim for damages had always been integral to trespass pro­­
cedure, necessarily so when the complaint was about violence to person
and property rather than just the seizure of goods. On Bigod’s eyre, the
juries spent as much time on the assessment of damages as on deciding
guilt and innocence. They pulled down exorbitant claims and sometimes
estimated in precise detail the value of seized crops and animals.114 Bigod
too was directly involved. On occasion, he both ‘taxed’ damages person-
ally and took steps to see they were actually paid.
In all this, there was a sharp contrast with common law procedures. There
damages could be awarded but they were very often simply given to the
judges’ clerks. So the plaintiff gained nothing from them. The main point of
the procedure was the return of the tenement in question, not the recovery
of damages suffered by its detention. With the querela, the difference is total.
In hardly a single case before Hugh Bigod were the damages given to the
clerks. Restoration and damages were the whole point of the procedure.

110 For the problems of proceeding by writ and the advantages of the querela, see
Hershey, ‘Justice and bureaucracy’.
111 The relationship between individual plaints and the testimony of the hundredal

jurors in the great inquiry of 1274/5 is a theme in Scales, ‘The Cambridgeshire ragman
rolls’.
112 For procedure by bill, see Hershey, ‘The earliest bill in eyre’, and his introduction to

SESK, lxxxii–v. For an inconclusive discussion as to the balance between oral and written
plaints, see Richardson and Sayles, SCWR, lvii–lxviii. For whether plaintiffs spoke through
a lawyer, a ‘narrator’, see Hershey, ‘Justice and bureaucracy’, 845.
113 DBM, 98–9, cap. 1.
114 For a striking example, SESK, no. 103. For the valuation of losses and injuries, with a

view to compensation, in the French enquêtes procedure, see Dejoux, ‘Valeur des choses’.
The term ‘damages’, however, hardly appears.
 revolution and reform 

There was also here a contrast between Hugh Bigod’s eyre and
the judicial eyres before 1258. On the latter, hundredal jurors answered a
whole series of questions about events since the last eyre. Their answers,
evidently gathered from individual complainants, sometimes covered
the malpractices of officials. But while the culprits might be punished, the
victims gained no redress. On the 1255 Surrey eyre, a jury thus accused
the bailiff, Henry Gargat, of seizing a quarter of corn worth 6s 6d
from one Peter de Bydon. But it was not till Bigod’s eyre that Bydon
received half a mark in compensation.115 In another case, before the
Sussex eyre of 1255, a hundredal jury accused Peter of Savoy’s steward of
falsely imprisoning one Geoffrey of Rottingdean. The bailiff was convicted
and amerced. But again Geoffrey himself got nothing. It was only
post-1258, when he brought a querela, that he at last secured compensation.
As the judgement stated, while the steward (through the amercement in
1255) had satisfied the king for his trespass, ‘to Geoffrey who suffered
the trespass, he has made no emends’.116 The same could be said of nearly
all the cases of abuse coming before the eyres before 1258. The contrast
with Hugh Bigod’s eyre is again total. In querela actions in Surrey and
Kent alone, he issued over sixty orders for the restoration of property
and or the payment of damages. Showing that justice was speedily
done, these awards are the best testimony to the utility and success of
his eyres.
Why did the reformers open up the querela procedure in this novel and
dramatic way? They were certainly making a practical response to the
trespasses, injuries and extortions suffered at the hands of local officials.
They were also influenced by the example of King Louis and the teach-
ings of leading churchmen. Of that more later.117 Behind the work of the
eyres one senses above all the care and zeal of Bigod himself. As well as
targeting notorious cases of abuse and punishing severely both royal and
baronial officials, he asked probing questions of defendants, taxed person-
ally the damages of even the poorest litigants and swept aside objections
to his authority from those, like the Londoners, the abbot of St Albans and
Dunstable priory, claiming liberties and exemptions.118 The justice meted
out on the eyre seems even handed, with convictions balancing acquittals.
The Poitevin, Elyas de Rabayn, before his expulsion from the kingdom,
actually won two cases. The queen’s steward, Matthias Bezill, on the other
hand, although still constable of Gloucester, was convicted of seizing land

115
TNA JUST 1/872, m. 32 (image 9145); SESK, no. 98.
116 TNA JUST 1/537, m. 1 (image 3146). The case came before Hugh Bigod’s successor
as justiciar, Hugh Despenser.
117 See below, 62–3.
118 His work is anlaysed more fully in ch. 3. For objections, see FitzThedmar, 39–40

(Stone, FitzThedmar, nos. 717–19); Paris’s Continuator, 427; Dunstable, 212.

 h e n ry i i i

from a peasant (Bezill claimed he was a villein) and sentenced to gaol.119

Some of the cases reveal Bigod’s humanity. He ordered a man ‘monstrously’
tortured by the sheriff of Northampton to be taken to a hospital, there to
be tenderly nursed in the hope of his recovery. He acquitted of theft three
men who had taken bread and cheese in the summer (during the great
famine of 1258) simply to sustain life.120

THE REFORM OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE IMPLEMENTED

The Ordinance of the Sheriffs in October 1258 did more than offer reas-
surance over the four knights and the justiciar’s eyre. It also set out a new
oath to be sworn by the sheriffs. This built on an oath introduced in 1236
and was probably far more detailed (it runs to nearly a page in a modern
printed version).121 In the new oath, the sheriffs were to swear to serve the
king loyally, but for the rest the concern was to ensure the fair treatment
of the people. The sheriffs were thus to give justice to everyone, poor as
well as rich, and be moderate in their acceptance of hospitality. They were
to take no more food and drink than that normally given at table. They
were only to stay with those who had land worth £40 a year (a level
excluding many knights) and then when invited and bringing only five
horses.122 They were to accept no present worth more than 12d, a sum
equivalent to twelve days’ wages for a female labourer. The oath’s other
major concern was with the sheriffs’ subordinates. His sergeants should be
men of substance, able to answer for their deeds. No more should be
employed than necessary lest the country be burdened with their food and
drink. They were to swear not to take goods or money ‘from any man, free
or villein . . . as many have been accustomed to do in the past’. Henry III,
in his speech to the exchequer in 1250, had said sheriffs were only to lease
hundreds at higher rents to those who would treat the people justly. The
final clause of the oath now forbad the letting out of hundreds altogether.
If the oath was obeyed it promised a new era in the relationship between
the sheriff and the county.
Having set out the oath, the Ordinance of the Sheriffs announced two
more reforms. The sheriffs were to stay in office only for a year, so people
would fear them less and be more ready to expose their wrongs. And at
the end of the year, they would receive their expenses from the king so

119
Hershey, ‘Success or failure?’, 73; SERHB, i, nos. 300, 339, 355; CR 1256–9, 339, 352.
120
SERHB, i, nos. 161, 171.
121 We only have Matthew Paris’s summary of the 1236 oath: Paris, iii, 363. It bound the

sheriff not to accept gifts by which justice might be corrupted, so nothing in land and only
a moderate amount of food and drink. Paris says it soon had no effect: Paris, HA, ii, 389.
For other references to oaths see CR 1251–3, 385 (a reference I owe to Richard Cassidy);
and see CFR 1235–6, no. 75. For a full discussion of oaths of office in the long thirteenth
century, see Lachaud, L’éthique du pouvoir au Moyen Âge, 479–97.
122 They were only to stay at religious houses with incomes of at least 100 marks a year.
 revolution and reform 

would have no need to take anything from anyone else. At the same time,
the council began to fulfil its promise to appoint sheriffs who were substan-
tial local knights. Between 23 October and 3 November 1258 nineteen
knights were appointed to twenty-eight counties. In seventeen cases they
came from the panels of knights elected in each county to investigate
abuses.123 All of them were made to swear the new oath.124 The council
also abolished the increments above the county farms demanded from
the previous sheriffs. Instead, in a return to the arrangements in 1236, the
sheriffs were made ‘custodians’ who provided detailed lists of all the
revenue from which had come the farm and the increments. They were
now to pay all of this into the exchequer, with the implication that in
return they would receive expenses.125

THE MAGNATES BOW TO REFORM

Parliament met again, in accordance with the Provisions, in February
1259. Here another great proclamation was drawn up, this one making
absolutely clear that the leaders of the regime were themselves subject to
the reforms. Evidently there had been doubts on that score. Known to
historians as the ‘Ordinances of the Magnates’, this remarkable document
was issued in the name of both the council of fifteen and the twelve repre-
senting the community at parliament. The two groups announced that all
the wrongs committed by themselves and their bailiffs were to be redressed
by the king or the justiciar. They would hinder no one from bringing
complaints. They also promised to obey Magna Carta in their dealings
with tenants and neighbours. And they undertook to make their officials
swear the same oath to act justly as that taken by the sheriffs. This last
stipulation was the reverse of a perfunctory one-liner. The oath, the
Ordinances explained, was to be taken in the lord’s court at every change
of official and in the presence of the four knights elected in each county,
presumably the four knights appointed to investigate abuses back in 1258.
The Ordinances then rehearsed the oath all over again. The officials were
to swear to serve loyally both the king and their lords. They were to give
right to all people, take nothing by which justice might be perverted and
employ no more subordinates than necessary. The subordinates in their
turn were to take nothing of value from ‘cleric or layman, house of reli-
gion or villein’.126

123
Treharne, Baronial Plan, 121–2; Ridgeway, ‘Mid thirteenth-century reformers and the
localities’, 67, and between 63 and 71, where there is a full discussion of the new sheriffs.
124 The swearing of the oath is stated specifically in respect of the new sheriff of Devon:

TNA E 159/32, m. 5d (image 0096). The exchequer made a record of the oath: TNA E
159/32, m. 2 (image 0004).
125 Cassidy, ‘Bad sheriffs, custodial sheriffs’, 41–9.
126 DBM, 130–7.
 h e n ry i i i

In the proclamation, the council and the twelve also looked to the future
and promised to accept whatever legislation was promulgated by November
1259 with respect to suit (meaning attendance) at private courts. In the
event, this legislation was to form another major plank in the programme
of reform. It had begun life with the Petition of the Barons at the Oxford
parliament and had then been developed in daily meetings at the New
Temple in the summer of 1258. More work was done, with some input from
the king’s judges, at the parliaments of October 1258 and February 1259.
Account was probably taken of the grievances revealed by the inquiry of
four knights and the complaints before Hugh Bigod. In March 1259, after
the parliament was over, a draft of the legislation (although only a draft) was
proclaimed at the New Temple.127 Running to twenty-five chapters, it
sought to remedy the abuses of the sheriffs and the justices in eyre. It also
in its first thirteen chapters dealt with the issue of suit of court. Here the
main aim was to provide a remedy for tenants who, against previous
custom, had been forced to do suit ‘by distraint and power of great
nobles’.128
The leaders of the regime, it seemed, were purging themselves in the
fire of reform. Yet some were all too keen to turn down the heat. The
legislation, long in gestation, had been proclaimed but only in draft form.
It was not yet the law of the land. There was also a delay when it came to
publishing the Ordinances of the Magnates. On 22 February, Simon de
Montfort and Richard de Clare had sealed them on behalf of the council.
But then they had lain hidden. Only on 24 March were they embodied in
a royal proclamation and sent round the country with orders they be read
in the county and hundred courts.
Resistance was understandable. In hearing cases on his Surrey and
Kent eyres against Archbishop Boniface, Peter of Savoy, Richard de Clare
and Richard de Grey, Hugh Bigod was allowing attacks on members of
the ruling council. All this was a huge contrast to ‘1215’, when the local
inquiries commissioned by Magna Carta were concerned simply with the
abuses of royal officials. At the February 1259 parliament itself, Peter of
Savoy had to call in Domesday Book to prove his peasants at Witley in
Surrey were villeins and thus could bring no action against him. What on
earth was happening when the queen’s uncle, an international statesman,
was being put to this trouble by his serfs? Why had Hugh Bigod even
agreed to hear such a case? The world was turning upside down.129
Richard de Clare was especially vulnerable to the ongoing complaints and
proposed legislation given his uniquely large network of private courts and

127 DBM, 122–31. For the evolution of the legislation, see Brand, Kings, Barons, and

Justices’, 20–33.
128 DBM, 124–5, cap. 4.
129 SESK, no. 105. The complaint was about how Peter had raised the rent.
 revolution and reform 

officials. With Simon de Montfort, he had sealed the Ordinances of the

Magnates but then he seems to have had second thoughts.130
The evidence here comes from Matthew Paris. According to his
account, in the days after the February parliament, Clare was upbraided
by Simon de Montfort for weakening in his commitment to reform. With
the earl of Hereford and others taking up Montfort’s cry, Clare sent his
steward (Hervey of Boreham) through his lands to correct what was wrong
‘according to the form of the new promise’, a reference surely to the
Ordinances of the Magnates. It looks as though Clare had been dragging
his feet over their publication and implementation. In dispatching his
steward to put matters right, he was exploiting the Ordinances’ acknowl-
edgement, quite probably of his making, that lords in their own courts
could put right the trespasses of their officials, so of course escaping the
justiciar’s intervention.131 Were Clare and his allies also responsible for the
publication of the Ordinances in French, but not also in English, thus
limiting their appeal?

THE PARLIAMENT OF OCTOBER 1259

By the time parliament met in October, the negotiations for a peace with
France had almost reached a conclusion. The summer had also seen
Henry’s one attempt, as unavailing as it was misconceived, to break free
from baronial control.132 This raised a question addressed at the parlia-
ment, namely the need to have councillors permanently at court. It was
thus decided that two or three councillors of ‘middle rank’ should always
be in attendance on the king. The full council would review their work at
each parliament and also meet itself between parliaments when necessary.
Although sometimes interpreted as a hit against the greater barons, this was
rather a recognition that the latter could not spend all their time at court.133
The parliament had other more resonating business than this tweak to
the council’s organization. Once again there was frustration at the slow
progress of reform, just as there had been at the parliament of a year
before. The legislation proclaimed back in March 1259 had not been made
official. Hugh Bigod during the spring and summer of 1259, leaving the
king behind, had heard pleas at Oxford, Lechlade, Reading, Newport

130
Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, 178.
131
Paris, v, 744–5; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, 180–1; DBM, 134–5. On 20 February
1259, Clare had secured a concession protecting the liberties of the jurisdictional area (the
‘lowy’) around Tonbridge castle: CPR 1258–66, 49–50. In the articles of the nationwide
eyre commissioned in November 1259, justice was to be done to those complaining of
private officials, but only if the lord had failed to mete it out: DBM, 162–3, cap. 7. This too
sounds like Clare’s work. According to the Ordinances of the Magnates, if the lord did
redress the grievance in his court, he was entitled to any amercement imposed.
132 See below, 76.
133 DBM, 150–1, cap. 7.
 h e n ry i i i

Pagnell, Huntingdon, Cambridge and Ware.134 But over half the counties
had not seen him at all. At the parliament, therefore, there was a protest.
According to the well-informed Burton abbey annalist, a body described
as ‘the community of the bachelery of England’, probably composed of
knights at the parliament, complained to Lord Edward, Richard de Clare
and other councillors that the barons had so far looked after themselves
and done nothing for ‘the utility of the republic’.135 Edward at once
declared that, although he had taken his initial oath unwillingly, he would
now stand by the community to the death and force the barons to fulfil
their promises. Under this pressure, the barons at last promulgated the
legislation, published in draft form back in March, dealing with attend-
ance at their courts, as well as the abuses of the sheriffs and the justices in
eyre. Perhaps the legislation would have been promulgated anyway, but
given all the delays, the community of the bachelery had reason for
thinking otherwise.136
The Provisions of Westminster, as they are called by historians, were
now given great publicity. On 24 October the king had them read in
Westminster Hall before earls, barons and ‘innumerable people’, no quick
process as they have twenty-four separate chapters, some lengthy.137 At last
the church too came behind the reforms. The bishops had been conspicu-
ously absent from the 1258 Oxford parliament, and had pronounced no
sentence of excommunication against those who opposed the revolu-
tionary reforms. The Provisions of Westminster, provisions the king might
have issued anyway of his own volition, were different. After they were
proclaimed in Westminster Hall, Archbishop Boniface and the bishops in
full pontificals excommunicated all who contravened them.138

THE NEW EYRE

In November 1259, soon after the close of the parliament, Hugh Bigod
addressed the problem of his solitary eyre. ‘To improve the state of all the
kingdom’, he now organized a judicial visitation in which panels of judges
were to tour all the counties of England.139 There were to be seven
circuits, one under Bigod himself, the others under a member of the
council, a member of the parliamentary twelve and a professional judge,

134 No records survive of Bigod, on these visitations, hearing, in any consistent way, the

complaints brought to light by the four knights and the hundredal jurors, but it is possible
some of his plea rolls are missing. For discussion by Hershey, see SESK, xxi–ii; SERHB, i,
pp. xv, lvii; Jacob, Studies, 64–5.
135 For further discussion of this episode, see below, 48.
136 For the detail of the legislation, see below, 158–9. It is comprehensively analysed in

Paul Brand’s Kings, Barons and Justices.

137 Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, 413–27; DBM, 136–49.
138 FitzThedmar, 42 (Stone, FitzThedmar, no. 726).
139 Bigod, rather than the king, attested the writs setting the eyre up: CR 1259–61, 139–40.
 revolution and reform 

the involvement of the councillors and the twelve being an indication of

the eyre’s importance.140 There was to be no doubt about the availability
of the querela. It was to be publicly proclaimed in cities, boroughs and
markets that the eyres would hear ‘all who shall wish to complain of tres-
passes committed against them in the last seven years’. Two types of
complaint were particularly specified, those made against royal and
seigneurial officials acting in breach of their recent oath, and those against
violators of Magna Carta, the first time judges had been given a commis-
sion to that effect. There was also to be another inquiry in each county by
hundredal jurors, while the judges were to have before them the inquiry
made by the four knights the year before. Given the judges were also to
hear common pleas, this would be the most comprehensive and deep-
digging judicial visitation ever to take place in England.141

MORE CHANGES TO THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE

The Westminster parliament saw important changes to the shrieval office.
In accordance with the original plan of reform, nearly all the sheriffs were
replaced, so they had indeed only held office for a year. The new appoin-
tees were once again mostly vavasours, that is, senior knights, of their
shires. All again took the oath to act justly devised in October 1258. There
was also a scheme to make the office partly elective. The sheriffs this time
were chosen by the justiciar, two senior judges and the exchequer, but for
the next year the plan was to have four candidates elected in the county
court, with the exchequer then selecting one as sheriff.142 The desire for
royal officials to be locally elected was long-standing. In the 1215 Magna
Carta, the four knights who were to sit with the king’s judges to hear the
assizes were to be elected in the county court. So were the twelve knights
who were to investigate abuses in each county. From King John’s reign
counties had occasionally offered money for permission to elect their
own sheriffs. Two of the sheriffs of 1258–9 had been elected by the four
knights commissioned to hear complaints in their counties. The four
knights themselves may well have been elected locally.143 Making the sher-
iff ’s office partly elective was thus a clear move to conciliate the shires.144

140
In fact, the involvement of the councillors and the twelve did not work as planned:
Crook, Records of the General Eyre, 189–91.
141 DBM, 158–65; CR 1256–9, 141–4; Jacob, Studies, 104–5. The eyre, however, was never

completed: Crook, Records of the General Eyre, 189–91.

142 DBM, 154–5, cap. 22; CFR 1257–8, no. 1178; TNA E 159/33, m. 4d (image 0074), for

the oath. For the new sheriffs, see Ridgeway, ‘Mid thirteenth-century reformers and the
localities’, 71–4.
143 Ridgeway, ‘Mid thirteenth-century reformers and the localities’, 66–7.
144 There were also schemes, apparently stillborn, to have a standing committee of four

knights in each county to monitor the activities of the sheriff and hear everyone’s
complaints between eyres.
 h e n ry i i i

If the reformers thus fulfilled their pledge to appoint sheriffs who were
county knights, they were unforthcoming when it came to conceding them
expenses. The granting of expenses or salaries to office-holders had been
a key feature of the reforms, one designed to ensure the probity of officials
by removing the need to accept bribes and other illicit payments. Both
Hugh Bigod and the treasurer of the exchequer, John of Crakehall, had
been given salaries, as we have seen. Salaries in place before 1258 had also
continued for the king’s judges, the justices of the Jews and various house-
hold officials.145 That the sheriffs should receive expenses had been stated
specifically in the Ordinance of October 1258. Yet while expenses were
ultimately claimed by around half a dozen sheriffs, none were actually
conceded during the lifetime of the regime.146 Here, however, the
reformers had some excuse. The new sheriffs had accounted not for fixed
increments above the ancient farms, but for all the issues they received, the
amount obtained above the farms being described as ‘profit’.147 In the
event the profits accounted for in 1258–9 were less than the previous incre-
ments to the tune of around £1,500. The new sheriffs were also less
successful in actually raising the money.148 The contrast reflected the
burdens imposed on the counties before 1258 and the way they had now
been lightened. But the government was entitled to suspect that, in the
difference between the old increments and the new profits, there was
money the sheriffs were keeping for themselves. They were in effect taking
their own expenses.
For the future, the government decided to abandon the idea of expenses
altogether and with it the sheriffs accounting for variable profits. Instead,
when the new sheriffs were appointed in 1259, the system of farms and
fixed increments was reinstated. This was administratively far easier to
run.149 It was also less of a retreat from reform than it might seem, for the
new increments were set at a level some £600 lower than those in force
before 1258. In Norfolk–Suffolk (a joint sheriffdom), the amount demanded
went down from 400 marks to 300; in Yorkshire from 470 marks to 350; in
Devonshire from 130 marks to 100. The sheriffs of Lincolnshire and
Hampshire were ‘given hope’ by Hugh Bigod that their increments might
be further reduced if they served the king well and could not find the

145
CLR 1251–60, 441–6, 457, 461, 465, 478.
146
For claims, see TNA E 368/35, mm. 18d, 20d–21, 24, 27–9. Eventually, between 1262
and 1273, nine sheriffs did succeed in getting expenses. See Collingwood, ‘Royal finance’,
127–37, and Cassidy ‘Fulk Peyforer’s wages’. Richard Cassidy has also sent me a detailed
table on the subject.
147 The issues here were those contributing before to the farm and increment (see below,

642 (the Glossary)). They had nothing to do with private debts.

148 Cassidy, ‘Bad sheriffs, custodial sheriffs’, 41.
149 For the administrative strain of the custodial system, see Barratt, ‘Crisis manage-

ment’, 68.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
kun se tapahtui oli heillä noitten velkojen tähden kärsittävänä tuskaa
ja huolta, joka monesti karkoitti rauhan ja levollisuuden heidän
mielestään. Niin sitä enemmän, kun "osakeyhtiö" ei suinkaan
kyennyt vapauttamaan heitä juoksevan vuoden tuottamista uusista
huolista.

Puhenäytännöissä (119) näyteltiin 48 kappaletta:

11 kertaa Sirkka, Oma Toivoni;

8 " Hänen ylhäisyytensä etuhuoneessa;
7 " Aksel ja Walborg, Mustalainen, Remusen kotiripitykset,
Yhdistysjuhla;
6 " Nummisuutarit, Sotavanhuksen joulu, Suorin tie paras,
Orposisarukset, Kavaluus ja rakkaus, Marin rukkaset;
5 " Lea, Työväen elämästä, Toinen tai toinen naimaan,
Suuria vieraita, Riita-asia, Lääkäri vastoin tahtoansa,
Narcisse Rameau;
4 " Kihlaus, Laululintunen, Onhan pappa sen sallinut,
Viuluniekka, Roistoväki, Puolan juutalainen;
3 " Bartholdus Simonis, Natalia ja Nadeschda, Enon rahat,
Jeppe Niilonpoika, Marianne, Pekka Patelin;
2 " Daniel Hjort, Tohvelivalta, Sven Dyringin koti;
1 " Anna Skrifvars, Margareta, Lapsuuden ystävät, Kosijat,
Pilven veikko, Monsieur Herkules, Tanssikengät, Ei
ollenkaan mustasukkainen, Yökausi Lahdella.

Näistä on kotimaisia 11 ja ohjelmistolle uusia oli 8: Daniel Hjort,

Lea, Lääkäri vastoin tahtoansa, Enon rahat, Roistoväki, Aksel ja
Walborg, Tanssikengät, Tohvelivalta.
VI.

Kuudes näytäntökausi, 1877-78.

Vasta perustettu Suomalaisen teatterin osakeyhtiö otti laitoksen

hoitoonsa 1 p:stä kesäk., ja väliaikaisen johtokunnan tuli järjestää ja
johtaa asioita yhtiökokoukseen asti 20 p. lokak. Siinä esitettiin
kertomus johtokunnan toimista, joka sisältää täydellisen luettelon
puhe- ja lauluosaston jäsenistä palkkoineen y.m. tietoja, jommoisia
— yhtä täydellisiä ja tarkkoja — olemme turhaan etsineet edellisiltä
vuosilta.

Alkavaksi näytäntökaudeksi otettiin K. Bergbom toimitusjohtajaksi

ja "näytelmän ohjaajaksi" (regissööriksi), lehtori Alex. Streng
rahastonhoitajaksi[110] sekä vaatteiston intendentiksi Emilie
Bergbom ja määrättiin ensinmainitulle palkkaa 4,000 mk ja
matkarahoja 1,000 mk sekä toisille kummallekin 1,000 mk.
Kirjailijaksi, jonka tuli korjata kieltä näyteltävissä kappaleissa, otettiin
lehtori B. F. Godenhjelm, mutta jätettiin palkkio riippuvaksi hänen
työstään. Kun puheosasto antoi näytäntöjä muualla kuin Helsingissä,
oli sitä koskeva rahastonhoito samoin kuin ohjaajantoimi uskottuna
O. Vilholle, jollei näet pääjohtaja itse ollut seurueen luona.
 Teatterin palvelukseen otettiin seuraavat henkilöt nimen ohessa
mainitulla vuosipalkalla:

A. Puheosasto.

Hra Osk. Vilho 4,000. Rva Aurora Aspegren 3,000.

" Arthur Lundahl 2,500. " Selma Lundahl 2,200.
" I. E. Kallio 2,500. Nti Kaarola Avellan 2,400.
" B. Leino 2,000. " Ida Aalberg 1,440.
" R. Kivekäs 1,600. Rva Mimmy Leino 1,440.
" J. A. Tervo 1,660. Nti Emilie Stenberg 1,320.
" C. Edv. Törmänen 1,800. " Amanda Strengberg 1,200.
" Bruno Böök 2,000. " Hilma Rosendahl 900.
" J. Glantz 1,320.

B. Lauluosasto.

Nti Naëmi Ingman (kk) 500. Hra J. Navrátil 10,000.

" Lydia Lagus 2,400. " John E. Bergholm 3,500.
" Alma Wikström 1,600. " N. Kiljander 3,000.
" Hilda Braxén 1,200. " E. Himberg 1,800.
" Helene Conradi 1,200. " Taavi Pesonen 1,800.
" Eufrosyne Kaarlonen 1,000. " K. O. Lindström 1,600.
" Amanda Carlsson 920. " Elias Kahra 1,200.
" Augustina Hyvärinen 800. " J. Snellman 1,000.
" Kaisa Telkiä 900. " R. Kauhanen 900.
" C. Wickman 420.
Rva A. Teffs 1,000.

C. Soittokunta.
 Hra B. Hrimaly 5,000. Hra L. Wanscheid 2,400.
" J. Hrimaly 2,500. " Aug. Laurent 2,400.
" J. Sandström 2,000. " J. A. Hammar 1,680.
" K. E. Pahlman 2,400. " Mauritz Forsström 1,500.
" I. P. Swoboda 2,400. " A. Lagerman 1,320.
" E. Werner 2,400. " A. R. Paulsson 600.
* G. Wanscheid 2,400. " J. L. Wikholm 600.
" A. Mannerström 1,275. " A. Feiler 1,080.
" G. Pelander 1,260.

Tästä näkyy että puheosastossa oli 17, lauluosastossa 20 ja

soittokunnassa 17, siis koko teatterissa yhteensä 54 jäsentä, ja
nousivat vuosipalkat 101,875 markkaan. Kun siihen luetaan muut
ylempänä mainitut palkat sekä vieraileville taiteilijoille tulevat
palkkiot, niin huomaamme palkkakonton lähenevän 120,000
markkaa (itse asiassa se nousi lähelle 140,000).

Mitä kertomus tietää yhtiön taloudellisesta asemasta, jätämme

alempana esitettäväksi; tässä mainittakoon vain pari Bergbom-
sisaruksia koskevaa päätöstä. Koska näet nämä olivat ottaneet
vastatakseen teatterin veloista, kuului laitoksen omaisuus oikeuden
mukaan heille. Näin ollen yhtiö päätti lunastaa heiltä vaatteiston
30,000 markasta, ja oli tämä summa maksettava kolmen vuoden
kuluessa, suorittamalla 10,000 mk. vuosittain. Myöskin katsottiin
kohtuulliseksi suoda heille se 8,000 mk:n korotus valtioavussa, jonka
hallitus lopulta, vastauksena vuoden alussa tehtyyn anomukseen, oli
myöntänyt. (Suomalaisen teatterin valtioapu teki siis tästä lähtien
24,000 mk. eli 8,000 mk vähemmän kuin Ruotsalaisen.) Nämä
päätökset olivat ensimäiset toimet edellisen ajan velkojen
lyhentämiseksi.
 Tässä yhteydessä on mainittava, että senaattori H. Molander
kesäkuun keskivaiheilla hänen käytettäväkseen määrätyistä yleisistä
varoista teatterin matka-apurahastoon lahjotti 1,500 markkaa. Tämä
epäilemättä tervetullut lahja oli todistus siitä suosiollisuudesta, jota
Molander ylipäätään aina osotti Suomalaista teatteria kohtaan.

Levähdettyään yhden kuukauden oli teatterin puheosasto jälleen

alkava toimensa heinäkuun alussa Kuopiossa. Sinne oli Bergbomkin
lähtenyt ja hänen ja Emilien kirjevaihdosta saamme jälleen tietoja
oloista.

(5/7) "Rakas sisar! Matka meni hyvin. — Lappeenrannassa kävin

kohta [Lydia] Laguksen luona, joka sanoi olevansa hyvissä voimissa.
Täysin toipuakseen hän ei vielä ollut laulanut säveltäkään, josta minä
kiitin häntä. Kiljanderin tapasin pikimmältään. Hän on naimisissa ja
onnellinen. Holmilla olin päivällisillä ja tulin tutuksi hänen
erinomaisen rakastettavan äitinsä kanssa. Holm ei ole vielä oikein
terve. — — Hän lupasi tulla syksyllä ja laulaa tsaari Pietarin ja Don
Juanin syys- ja lokakuulla — n.b. jos hän on terveempi kuin nyt.
Olemme siis pelastetut vähän eteenpäin. [Naëmi] Ingmanistakin on
toiveita. Lagus arveli hänen matkansa olevan epävarman. — Jos
Ingman tulee, saa hän laulaa Elviran Don Juanissa ja Eudoran
Juutalaistytössä. Silloin on syksy jotenkin selvä. Mutta kevät!!! — —
Vilho oli Saimaalla, kun tulin. Kun hän tunsi itsensä jotenkin
terveeksi, hän ei välittänytkään siitä parin viikon vapaudesta, jonka
olin luvannut hänelle. Se on tietysti ääretön helpotus ohjelmiston
määräämiselle, ja minä olen kiitollinen Vilholle hänen
ystävällisyydestään." —

(Helsingistä 10/7) "Oma Kaarloseni, levottomasti odotan tietoja

sinusta ja teatterista; olen levoton terveytesi tähden — olit niin
väsynyt päivinä ennen kun lähdit. Minä voin aika hyvin, mutta oikein
terveeksi en tule, ennen kun ilmat lämpenee. Varsinkin eilen oli ruma
ilma. Jos pohjoisessa on yhtä koleaa, niin saamme kai huonon
vuodentulon. Jos huomenna on lämmin ja tyyni, niin saan mennä
ulos. [Tri] Morin näyttää vaativan minulta suurta varovaisuutta,
mutta enhän minä saa voimia, jollen saa raitista ilmaa, liikuntoa ja
ruokahalua".[111] — Muistutus pian maksettavasta vekselistä [2,500
mk, sisarusten hoidettavia teatterivelkoja!].

(Kuopiosta 10/7) "Näytäntökausi on alkanut täällä — ei oikein

hyvästi eikä oikein huonostikaan. Ensi näytäntö [8/7] antoi vähän yli
400 mk; mutta olikin oikea Herran ilma. Näyteltiin Puolan juutalainen
ja Mustalainen. Huomasimme näet, että Viuluniekka on niin loppuun
annettu, ettei enää maksa vaivaa. Huomenna Enon rahat,
perjantaina [13/7] Sirkka [rva Aspegrenin hyväksi] ja pyhänä
Nummisuutarit. Jos vain Kaarola Avellan pian tulisi. Vilho on ottanut
asioiden hoidon siksi kun rahastonhoitaja saadaan. Muutoin hän
pysyy johtajana. — Törmänen on tullut ja oli sangen nolo. Hän
tahtoo erota, ei harrastuksen puutteesta, vaan sentähden että hänen
isänsä mielestä teatterin tulevaisuus on epävarma. Kumminkin on
hän kahdella päällä. En ole kuitenkaan kehottanut häntä jäämään,
vaan päin vastoin sanonut että on paras lähteä, jollei hän voi olla
rettelöimättä joka kerta kun ei hänen tahtoaan noudateta. — — Olen
muuten elänyt 'ylpeästi' ruoassa ja juomassa ollen usein kutsuilla. En
ole vielä ennättänyt käydä kuvernöörillä eikä tuomiorovastilla.
Teatteri vie päiväni varhaisesta aamusta iltaan. — Therese Hahl ja
hänen miehensä olivat täällä eräällä matkalla. Herttaisia ja
ystävällisiä kuin aina." —

(Helsingistä 14/7) Emilie puolestaan kirjoitti kirjeen täynnä asioita.

Juurikään tulleen kirjeen johdosta, jossa eräs oopperan jäsen esittää
entistä suurempia palkkavaatimuksia, hän ankarasti arvostelee
semmoisten vaativaisuutta, jotka eivät suinkaan seiso ensi rivissä.
Esittämänsä laskutavan mukaan olisi nuori laulajatar voinut saada 8
à 900 mk [kuukaudessa]. Vastakohdaksi sille asettaa kirjoittaja
samaan aikaan tulleen tarjouksen nti Signe Hebbeltä, joka lupasi
tulla yhdessä Fritz Arlbergin kanssa, jos saisivat kumpikin 150 mk
illalta (yhteensä 300). — Edelleen hän kertoi hauskan uutisen, että
Navrátil oli "tullut kotia" se on Helsinkiin ja pyytänyt Unissakävijän
suomalaista tekstiä. Hän oli käynyt kotimaassaan ja laulanut Pragissa
erittäin suurella menestyksellä, jonka tähden Hrimaly oli luullut ettei
hän enää palaisikaan. — Elokuun 1 p. harjotukset alkavat. "Tuletko
niin hyvissä ajoissa, että tsaarin laiva saadaan valmiiksi, vai onko
meidän ryhdyttävä sitä laittamaan?" — Alma Fohströmin sanotaan
olevan sairaana Italiassa. Emilie oli kirjoittanut hänelle, mutta ei
lähettänyt Faustin partituuria, ennen kun vastaus tulee. — Paljo
huolta antoivat raha-asiat, Kaarlon on lähetettävä nimellään
varustettu vekseli; mutta raitis ilma, jota oli nauttinut Kaisaniemessä
ja Hertonäsissä oli kuitenkin virkistänyt. — "Kuinka, rakas Kaarlo, on
meidän käyvä tulevana vuonna? ja kuinka olen minä tänä kesänä
selviävä epätoivoisista raha-asioistani? Hyvästi, armaani; hoida
itseäs? ja kirjoita niin usein kuin voit. — Tiedäthän kuinka olen
levoton."

(Kuopiosta 17/7) "Rakas sisar! Pahaksi onneksi olin pienellä

huvimatkalla, kun kirjeesi tuli, jossa puhut vekselistä. Sentähden
lähetän vasta tänään mitä pyysit. — — Alku täällä ei ole ollut oikein
myötäinen. Ensimäisen ja neljännen näytännön tulos hyvä, mutta
toisen ja kolmannen huono. Täällä sattunut tulipalo[112] on
vaikuttanut tuntuvasti, niinikään jotkut kuolemantapaukset
maahanpanijaisineen, muutamat häät ja kaunis ilma, joka vihdoinkin
on tullut. Kaarola Avellania kaivataan, sillä vanhat kappaleet eivät
kelpaa ja hänellä on osansa kaikissa uusissa. Muutoin on henki
oivallinen ja järjestyskin, jollei kiitettävä, kumminkin välttävä.
Ahkeruuskin on tyydyttävä. Katarina Howard on puoleksi valmis, Don
Ranudo kokonaan uudestaan luettu (Stenberg — Olympia) ja useat
[nti] Töttermanin rooleista korjattuja. Lundahl on paljo terveempi
kuin Helsingissä ja näyttelee toisenlaisella lennolla. — — Fennomania
seurueessa on tällä hetkellä oivallinen. En ole kuullut ruotsin sanaa
sitte kun tulin."

"Minulle uusia kappaleita on annettu: Enon rahat ja Sirkka.

Molemmat menivät harjotuksissa ylen huolimattomasti ja
epätasaisesti. Enon rahat harjotutin kuitenkin niin monesti (jopa
jotkut kohtaukset 7 kertaa peräkkäin), että yhteisnäytteleminen
menee mainiosti. Se on nyt siihen katsoen ohjelmiston parhaiten
näyteltyjä kappaleita. Apropos yksi esimerkki mitä pukuja voidaan
käyttää, kun ei ole annettu tarkkoja määräyksiä. Kolmannessa
näytöksessä matkustavat rva Aspegren ja [nti] Tötterman (kaksi
nuorta porvarillista rouvaa) rautatiellä 17 peninkuormaa kesällä.
Uskotko minkälaisessa puvussa? Mustassa sametissa, rva
Aspegrenilla punaiset atlaskäänteet!!! — — Sirkan tähden en
huolinut nähdä vaivaa, vaan annoin sen mennä menojaan. Rva
Aspegren sai paljo apploodeja, mutta oli sangen heikko. Pani painoa
ainoastaan yksityisiin situatsionivaikutuksiin kykenemättä luomaan
kokonaiskuvaa. Sitä paitse hän hutiloi lausumisessa. Samoin
Leinokin. Sivuroolit menivät sitä vastoin aika hyvin (myöskin Kallion
ja Savolaisen). — — Jos tarvitset rahaa, niin ota heinäkuun palkkani
Wahlströmiltä. Tulen kyllä toimeen täällä, sillä elän erittäin hiljaisesti
enkä siis tarvitse rahoja. Ystäväsi ja veljesi Kaarlo."

Vielä on tätä samaa kirjevaihtoa kolme Emilien laatimaa, jotka

enimmästään koskevat oopperaa. Paitse omia kirjeitään hän lähettää
Kaarlolle milloin sieltä milloin täältä saamiansa kirjeitä, jotka
koskevat heille yhteisiä asioita. Semmoinen on Ida Basilierin
Lysekilistä (10/7), josta teemme otteen:

— — "Olet kenties kuullut että tulen seuraamaan Behrensiä ja

Trebelliä 10 p:stä marrask. 10 p:ään jouluk. Englannissa, saaden
palkkaa 2,000 frangia ja kaikki vapaata — jopa seuranaisenkin. Hän
tahtoo minut Pohjoissaksaankin syys- ja lokakuulla, mutta kun olen
aikonut tehdä hyvästijättö-kierroksen kotimaassa, ei se käy päinsä.
Ilolla esiinnyn Teillä niin usein kuin mahdollista tänä syksynä, mutta
häitteni täytyy kai olla 30 p. lokak., jotta ennätän Lontooseen. —
Mutta kuinka tulette elämään? Olen usein levottomuudella ajatellut
suunnitelmianne, ja jos suinkin voin, tahdon mielelläni olla jonkun
ajan Teidän luonanne tulevana keväänä. — Paljo voi käydä toisin
kuin tuumii, mutta kaikissa tapauksissa tulen elokuun lopulla tai
syyskuun alussa — milloin vain tahdotte. Minun täytyy vain tietää
minä päivinä minun on esiintyminen Teillä, niin että voin asettaa
konsertit väliin. — — Ole nyt varovainen rakas Emilie; muista että
terveytesi on kallis niin monelle. Sinulla oli niin paljo vaivaa minunkin
tähteni viimeisenä aikana." — —

(Helsingistä 21/7) "Kaarloseni! Tässä on Idan kirje; kyllä hän on

erinomaisen kiltti ja rakastettava, kun tulee ja auttaa meitä keväällä
— nythän voit hyvin ajatella Juutalaistyttöä. — Taikka ajattelemmeko
Mignonia?" — — Emil Genetz oli tullut kotia, sairaana ja
murheellisena ja epäili voisiko hän tulla laulajaksi. Jos hänen täytyi
luopua laulusta, niin hän tulisi puheosastoon. "Sanoin että hänet
siellä vastaanotetaan avoimin sylin ja sydämin. Hän näyttää
harrastavan luonnenäyttelijän-alaa. joka ilahdutti minua." — —
"Hupaista oli kuulla, että olet tyytyväinen seurueen henkeen ja
käytöstapaan. Jos nyt käy niin onnellisesti, että ooppera kuolee
keväällä, niin teatteri kai tulee oikein hyväksi." — — "Faltin pyytää
sinua ajattelemaan Tannhäuseria, hän luulee että se voisi mennä
varsin hyvin."

Kahdessa viimeisessä kirjeessä Emilie moittii useita oopperan ja

puheosaston jäseniä huolimattomuudesta, kun eivät määräaikana
tule saapuville. — Sen ohella muuta: "Kuinka kauhean ikävä on
Vilhon tila!", kirjoittaja huudahtaa saatuaan jonkun tiedon
näyttelijästä. "Vilho parka, kyllä on vaikeaa, kun on niin heikko
ruumis; kyllä hänellä on ollut liiaksi työtä heikkoihin voimiinsa
nähden." — "Erinomaisen rakastettavan kirjeen Fohströmiltä sain
eilen [3/8]. Hän lupaa varmaan tulla tammikuulla, mutta, jos me
vaadimme, katsoo hän itsensä velvolliseksi tulemaan syksylläkin,
vaikkei ennen marraskuuta, sillä hän tahtoo välttämättömästi
suorittaa näyttämöllisen oppikurssin ja laulaa vähän Lampertin
edessä — tammikuulla hän tulee mielellään." — Samassa kirjeessä
(4/8) Emilie sanoo: "Luulin että voisimme tulla toimeen jonkun viikon
ilman sinua, mutta ei se käy — sinun täytyy kohta tulla tänne. Mistä
saamme miesköörin? Eihän meillä ole muuta bassoa kuin Kahra, joka
tuli heinäkuun viimeisenä ja on erinomaisen kiltti ja huomaavainen."
—

Tässä yhteydessä annamme lopuksi ottaen eräästä Alma

Fohströmin kirjeestä, se kun samoin kuin Ida Basilierin kirje, on
soma näyte tekijän rakastettavaisuudesta:

(Cernobbiosta 26/8) — — "Te pyydätte minua, rakas neiti,

sanomaan, toivonko mitään etukäteen palkkiostani? — Noin kaksi
vuotta sitte, kun pidimme jonkunlaisen perheneuvottelun kotona,
päätettiin, taikka oikeammin oli minun toivomukseni, että kun minä
esiinnyn kotimaisella näyttämöllä, niin ei palkkiosta saisi olla
puhettakaan, sillä minäkin tahtoisin vähäisellä kyvylläni edistää
Suomalaisen oopperan ihania harrastuksia, liittyen niiden joukkoon,
jotka ovat kantaneet kortensa kekoon. Kas siinä, hyvä neiti,
lempiaatteeni silloin — ja nyt?"

"Nyt pidän siitä kiinni enemmän kuin ennen, sillä eihän ole
lainkaan tietty, tulenko menestymään näyttämöllä, miellytänkö
yleisöä ja olenko itse oleva tyytyväinen toimeeni palvellessani Teitä.
Tästä syystä, rakas neiti, on vakaa toivoni, että jätätte palkkiotuumat
sikseen. Jos sittekin tahtoisitte toisin, niin pyydän Teitä kääntymään
rakkaan isäni puoleen, jolla on oikeus päättää asiasta ja jonka
ratkaisuun mielelläni taivun. Muutoin pyydän, älkää niin varmasti
luottako kykyyni, joka vielä on kokematon. Suokoon toki Jumala,
että vähänkin vastaisin niitä toiveita, joita armaassa isänmaassani
kohdistetaan minuun. Ei kukaan olisi siitä onnellisempi ja nöyrempi
kuin minä."

"Ennen tammikuuta lienee minun mahdoton päästä kotia, sillä

lääkäri on kovasti kieltänyt minua olemasta ahkera ja täytyy minun
sentähden olla varovainen opinnoissani. Mutta jos niin onnettomasti
kävisi, että isäni ei voisi toimittaa rahoja ja minun senvuoksi olisi
palaaminen kotiin, niin kyllä annan Teille tiedon siitä. Nyt, rakas neiti,
on vain jälellä kysymys: Mitä oopperoita aiotte esittää taikka missä
toivotte minun laulavan paitse Faustissa ja Somnambulassa? Linda ja
paashi oopperassa Ballo in maschera ovat täällä hyvin miellyttäneet.
— — Tuhat sydämellistä tervehdystä, syleilyä ja suudelmaa Teidän
ijäti kiitolliselta ja nöyrältä pikku ystävältänne."

Palaamme nyt Kuopioon, jossa teatteri jatkoi tointaan

säännöllisesti, mutta yleensä vain keskinkertaisella menestyksellä.
Ylempänä mainittujen näytäntöjen jälkeen tuli ensin pari iloisempaa
ohjelmaa — 18/7 Lääkäri vastoin tahtoansa ja Remusen
kotiripitykset; 20/7 Don Ranudo di Colibrados ja Herkules —, sitte
kaksi murhenäytelmää: 22/7 Kavaluus ja rakkaus ja 25/7 Maria
Tudor. Heinäkuun viimeinen näytäntö (29 p.), jolloin esitettiin Kosijat,
Kalatyttö ja Silmänkääntäjä, ansaitsee mainitsemista sentähden että
sinä iltana nti Anni Hacklin ensi kerran esiintyi näyttämöllä. Tämä 19-
vuotias neiti, nimismiehen tytär, Kuopiosta (synt. Karttulassa) oli
täällä liittynyt seurueeseen ja oli heleällä sopranollaan ja reippaalla,
luontevalla näyttelemisellään ennen pitkää saava huomatun sijan
teatterin nuorten naisjäsenten joukossa. Hänen ensi esiintymisestään
Annana laulukappaleessa Kalatyttö, vakuuttaa paikkakunnan lehti, ei
voinut "muuta kuin hyvää sanoa".

Elokuu alkoi kahdella uutuudella: 3/8 ja 5/8 Tuokon suomentama,

A. Dumas vanh. 4-näytöksinen historiallinen näytelmä Katarina
Howard ja 8/8 ja 12/8 Törmäsen suomentama B. Björnsonin
Konkurssi, joka jälkimäinen kappale oli ensimäinen näyte
kukoistukseen nousevaa uutta norjalaista draamaa Suomalaisen
teatterin ohjelmistossa. Näitä seurasi Daniel Hjort, joka meni kolme
kertaa 10/8, 15/8 ja 3/9. Vilho, joka jälleen oli yksin johtajana,
kirjoitti 14/8: Konkurssi onnistui jotenkin hyvin, mutta ei se
miellyttänyt Kuopion kauppiaita: tulot ensi iltana 279, toisena 233
mk. Sitä vastoin Katarina Howard tuotti ensi kerralla 255 ja toisella
432 mk. Daniel Hjort antoi ensi kerralla 408 mk. — Parista
myöhemmästä kirjeestä saamme seuraavat tiedot Kuopiossa olon
viime ajasta. Ilmat olivat kylmät ja sateiset, niin että ihmiset
mieluimmin pysyivät kotona. "Eilen [29/8] satoi aamusta iltaan, josta
seuraus oli 131 mkan tulo." Lea näyteltiin kaksi kertaa 22/8 ja 26/8
pienempien huvinäytelmien kera ja tuotti se ensi iltana 251, toisena
403 mk; Aksel ja Walborg antoi 226 mk. — "sen teki kylmä ilma".
Viimeinen ohjelma oli Preciosa, joka meni kaksi kertaa 31/8 ja 2/9;
jäähyväisnäytäntönä annettiin Daniel Hjort 3/9.

Vasta Jyväskylästä, johon seurue lähti Kuopiosta, Vilho luo

yleiskatsauksen kaksikuukautiseen toimeen tässä kaupungissa ja
ääni on sangen alakuloinen:

"Rakas ystäväni! Raskaalla mielellä tartun kynään, kun vain

kysymys on teatterin asioista, ja siinä pääsyy, miksi kirjoitan niin
harvoin. En tahtoisi vaikeroida. Kun vieras tavan mukaan kysyy:
miten käy? kuinka kannattaa? vastaan säännöllisesti: hyvin: varsinkin
kun tiedän kysyjän olevan viimeisiä meitä auttamaan. — Tulot
Kuopiossa tänä vuonna olivat noin 30 mk vähemmän iltaa päälle kuin
viime vuonna eli yhteensä 8,564 mk. Menot palkkioineen, päivä- ja
matkakustannuksineen noin 10,000 mk. Menoista oli hirveimmät:
vuokra 811 mk, kirjoituksia ja suomennoksia 475, vaivaismaksuja
176, poliisille 125, valaistus 414, kirjapainoon 410,
matkakustannukset 670, musiikista 315 j.n.e."

Jyväskylässä seurue viipyi noin puolitoista kuukautta. Ensi

näytäntö (Viuluniekka) oli 9/9 ja viimeinen (Sirkka) 22/10.
Ohjelmisto oli pääasiassa sama kuin Kuopiossa. Kumminkin olivat
Viuluniekka ja Marianne Jyväskylässä uusia ja mahdolliset
näyteltäväksi, jota vastoin näyttämön ahtauden vuoksi
Nummisuutarit ja suuret murhenäytelmät jätettiin sikseen. Ainoa
aivan uusi kappale oli Kiven Karkurit, joka esitettiin ensi kerran
17/10. Sen olisi pitänyt valmistua jo Kuopiossa, mutta parin
näyttelijän huolimattomuuden tähden ja siksi että "muutamat
hirveästi halveksivat tätä näytelmää", harjotukset olivat käyneet
hitaasti. Tulot olivat ylipäätään nytkin niinkuin edellisenä kertana
paremmat kuin Kuopiossa, varsinkin kun menot olivat pienemmät —
mutta eivät sittenkään tyydyttävät. Parhaimpia iltoja oli: Viuluniekka
428, Työväen elämästä, Kalatyttö ja Silmänkääntäjä
(markkinapäivänä) 463, Marianne ensi kerralla 279, toisella 459 mk.
Keskitulo oli vähän yli 300; edellisenä vuonna yli 400 mk. Loppu oli
siis semmoinen, että Vilhon täytyi pyytää matkarahoja päästäkseen
seurueineen Helsinkiin, johon oli määrä tulla. — Muita jobinsanomia
oli että Törmänen taas oli sanonut lähtevänsä ja että Tervo oli niin
sairas, että hänet oli toimitettava sairaalaan.

*****

Kun nyt käännymme lauluosaston puoleen, saamme pian nähdä

että sen asiat tuskin olivat ilahuttavammalla kannalla. — Oopperan
laulukyvyt esiintyivät tänä syksynä ensi kerran julkisesti 2/9, kun he
ylioppilastalolla antoivat huokeahintaisen konsertin. Laulunumeroita
esittivät neidit Lagus, Wikström ja Braxén sekä hrat Navrátil,
Bergholm ja Pesonen, jota paitse viulunsoittajana esiintyi J.
Sandström, joka neljä vuotta harjotettuaan opintoja Leipzigissä oli
otettu teatterin palvelukseen soittamaan ensi viulua orkesterissa.
Laulajaisissa oli noin 300 hengen kiitollinen yleisö.

Näytännöt alkoivat 7/9 Flotovin Marthalla, jota ei oltu annettu

huhtikuun jälkeen 1876. Nimirooli oli uskottu Lydia Lagukselle, joka
ei suinkaan pettänyt yleisön toivomuksia, vaan sai oivallisesta
laulustaan ja näyttelemisestään lämpimiä suosionosotuksia. Nancyn
osan suoritti tyydyttävästi nti Hilda Braxén,[113] joka ensi kerran
esiintyi suuremmassa tehtävässä, ja Kiljander näytteli hupaisesti
loordi Micklefordia. Muut esiintyjät olivat vanhoja rooleissaan.
"Sopuväli" — U. S. sanoo — oli yleensä varsin hyvä. — Sama
ooppera meni vielä kolme kertaa (9/9-16/9); viimeisenä iltana oli
Arkadiassa paljo väkeä, joka jakoi hartaan suosionsa Lydia Laguksen
ja Navrátilin välillä. Viides näytäntö peruutettiin viimeksi mainitun
taiteilijan sairastumisen tähden.

Ensimäinen täksi näytäntökaudeksi valmistettu uusi ooppera, G. A.

Lortzingin Tsaari työmiehenä esitettiin ensi kerran 23/9 ja tuotti
täydelle huoneelle "erinomaisen hauskan illan". Soma, koomillinen
sävelteos oli huolellisesti harjotettu ja esitys sujui eloisasti ja
sopusuhtaisesta. Hullunkurisen pormestarin osan suoritti Hannes
Hahl erityisellä menestyksellä. Vahva, mehevä ja hyvin kehittynyt
bassoäänensä ja raitis koomillisuutensa herättivät samassa määrässä
mieltymystä. Kiljander puolestaan harrasti hienompaa, historiallista
sävyä, kuvatessaan Tsaaria, Pietari suurta. Edelleen kiitettiin Lydia
Lagusta viehättäväksi Mariaksi. Että Navrátil, Bergholm ja Pesonen
tapansa mukaan hyvin täyttivät roolinsa, tarvitsee tuskin sanoa. Eikä
yleisö säästänyt mieltymyksenilmaisujaan; toisen näytöksen
miessekstetin jälkeen olivat ne niin innokkaita, että numero oli
uudistettava. — Ooppera annettiin sitte vielä neljä kertaa peräkkäin
(25/9-2/10); lähinnä viimeisenä kertana esiintyi nti Braxén Mariana
(nti Laguksen pahoinvoinnin tähden). — Tämän jälkeen tuli
ainoastaan yksi ooppera-ilta 4/10, sillä seurue oli lähtevä Turkuun.
Jäähyväisiksi esitettiin Martha. Sali oli täynnä ja yleisö innoissaan.
Lydia Lagus sai kukkia ja lopussa hän ja Navrátil sekä muut esiintyjät
ja orkesterin johtaja Hrimaly huudettiin esiin.

Sanomista, joista nämä tiedot on poimittu, ei näe miten asiat

oikeastaan olivat. Ensi kerralla Tsaari työmiehenä tuotti 1,517 ja
Martha viimeisellä 1,002 mk; mutta keskimäärin antoivat edellisen
oopperan näytännöt noin 800 ja jälkimäisen 640 mk. Semmoisilla
tuloilla lauluosasto ei tullut toimeen, ja kun puheosastokin yhä
tarvitsi apua, oli alku kaikkea muuta kuin lupaava. Eikä Turun-
matkaankaan suuria toiveita kiinnitetty. Siitä kirjoitti Emilie Bergbom
jo 25/9 nti Elfvingille, joka ystävällisesti oli hankkinut Lydia
Lagukselle asunnon omassa kodissaan:

"Kauhean levoton olen Turussa olon johdosta; on kai viimeinen

kerta, kun Turun yleisön tarvitsee käydä suomalaisessa oopperassa,
mutta paha olisi, jos tappio tulisi kovin suureksi. Matkakustannukset
ovat korkeat ja päiväkustannukset kovin suuret. Siihen tulee että
Turussa on merkitty niin vähän osakkeita, että korvaus on mitätön.
— Voi, rakas Bettyseni, jos tietäisit kuinka julmasti menneitten
vuosien tappiot painavat hartioitani; tavasta olen epätoivon
partaalla. — Syvästi toivon että Trebelli ei tulisi tänne [kuuluisaa
laulajatarta odotettiin Suomeen lokakuulla antamaan konsertteja].
Hän vie niin paljon rahaa, että ihmisillä sitten ei ole varaa muuhun.
Sitä paitse tiedämme kokemuksesta, että Fichtelbergerin ja
ruotsalaisilta joukoilta ei vaadita mitä vaaditaan Suomalaiselta
teatterilta, vaan pitää tämän yhdistää niin toisen kuin toisenkin
ansiopuolet, ilman niiden virheitä. Nyt tulevat kai ihmiset siihen
päätelmään, että kun suomalaisen näyttämön taiteilijat eivät
mitenkään ole verrattavat Trebelliin ja Behrensiin, niin ei maksa
vaivaa käydä niitä kuulemassa!" —

Valitettavasti kirjoittaja oli hyvinkin oikeassa. — Kaarlo lähti

Turkuun jo vähän ennen seuruetta ja kun tämä oli tullut, annettiin
ensiksi, 7/10, oopperakonsertti. Se tuotti läsnäoleville "ihanan illan",
mutta tulo oli vain 353 mk, joka oli kovin vähän kun täysi huone olisi
antanut 1,215 mk. Turkulaiset eivät olleet uteliaita kuulemaan
kotimaisia laulutaiteilijoita, vaikka useimmat olivat heille
tuntemattomia. — Pari päivää sen jälkeen Emilie, joka juurikään oli
saanut Vilhon rahanpyynnön puheseurueen Helsingin matkaa varten,
kirjoittaa:
 "Voi, rakas Kaarloni, kuinka on tämä päättyvä! — Meillä on
vastatuuli ja meidän täytyy vielä olla valmiina kokemaan paljo.
Ajattelen vain, mihin lähdemmekään ja mitä on tekeminen, kun
kaikki hajoaa. Betty Elfvingiltä sain muutamia rivejä; hän sanoo että
konsertissa [jolla lauluosasto oli alkanut toimensa Turussa] oli puoli
huonetta, mutta että mieltymys oli suuri. Mitä kuuluu Idasta? Jollet
ennätä etkä itse jaksa, niin pyydä Betty Elfvingiä kirjoittamaan. Hän
sanoo sinun näyttäneen niin väsyneeltä ja alakuloiselta, että hän ei
tahtonut vaivata sinua kysymyksillä. Betty raukka, kyllä hän on oleva
kovin tuskissaan, jos meidän täytyy tehdä vararikko." —

Emilien käsitys asemasta oli perin synkkä, mutta olihan siihen

syytä. Puhumatta tuskallisesta velkataakasta, joka oli laskettu hänen
ja Kaarlon hartioille, näyttäytyi uudenkin yhtiön alkutoimi sangen
arveluttavalta. Ennen mainitun kertomuksen mukaan nousi keväällä
merkitty uusi kannatus 21,100 markkaan, joten (kun 1876 merkitty
määrä 14,600 mk. otettiin lukuun) koko kannatus teki 35,700
markkaa. Tästä oli lokakuun alkupuolella saatu 9,700 mk. Edelleen
oli valtioapua nostettu yksi neljännes, 6,000 mk, näytännöistä tullut
7,506:20 ja lahjana saatu 183:25 mk. Tulojen summa oli siis
23,389:45 mk. Puheosastolta ei oltu tilejä saatu, mutta sille oli
lähetetty 5,039:12 mk. Kaikkiaan tekivät menot samalta ajalta
44,995:28 mk., ja oli siis vaillinki 21,605:83 markkaa. Että tappio
näyttäytyi näin suureksi, johtui tietysti pääasiassa siitä että uusi
kannatus ei ollut puoltakaan siitä summasta (50,000), joka oli
katsottu tarpeelliseksi, sekä että palkat oli maksettu kesäkuun 1
p:stä, vaikka toimi alkoi vasta myöhemmin. Mutta vaikka niinkin, oli
selvää, että koko vuoden tappio nousisi suureksi, jollei tuuli kääntyisi
erityisen myötäiseksi.
 Älkäämme sentähden ihmetelkö, että Bergbom-sisarukset olivat
alakuloisia. Että ymmärtäväiset kansalaiset käsittivät, kuinka
vaikeissa oloissa elettiin, huomaa Z. Topeliuksen sanoista Emilie
Bergbomille (kirjeessä 5/11): "Tarvitaan rohkeutta näinä aikoina
kantaakseen suomalaista näyttämöä hartioillaan — ja
kärsivällisyyttä! Minä ihailen neiti Emilietä, sillä ei yksikään mies
kestäisi sitä!" —

Ja Turussa, siellä oli yleisö erinomaisen hidas käymään teatterissa!

Ensiksi Trebelli tuli kuin tulikin ja aikaansai siellä niinkuin Helsingissä
"trebellikuumeen", joka tietenkin vahingoitti teatteria; mutta toiseksi
on ilmeistä, että Turussa oli vallalla sama nurjamielisyys kansallista
näyttämöä kohtaan, joka sai suuren osan Helsingin yleisöä
laiminlyömään näytäntöjä Arkadiassa. Yksityisistä kirjeistä näiltä
vuosilta saadaan riittävästi todistuksia. "Fichtelbergerin kehno esitys
kaikista maailman oopperoista on täyttänyt salongin permannosta
kattoon kahden kuukauden aikana, vaikka useimpien täytyi
tunnustaa, että monesti korvien kidutus oli suurempi kuin nautinto."
Sen ohella mainitaan että oli niitä ("Julinin puolue" y.m.), jotka
mieluummin vetivät Ruotsista "mitä roskaa tahansa" kuin kuulivat
suomenkieltä näyttämöltä. Varmaa on että johtokunnan Helsingissä
täytyi hyvissä ajoin tiedustella teatteria ja kokemus käski olla
luottamatta suullisiin lupauksiin. Edelleen oli sanomalehdistön
avunanto niin ja näin. Åbo Postenissa Nervander oli uskonut
oopperanäytäntöjen arvostelemisen eräälle soitannontuntijalle (I.
[114]), joka kyllä yleensä tunnusti esityksiä ansiokkaiksi, mutta oli
siksi ankara (varsinkin Navrátilia kohtaan), että Alikin (K. R.
Malmström) Å. U:rissä moitti häntä. Tämän jälkimäisen lehden
"kannatuksesta" mainitaan enemmän alempana.
 Ensimäinen näytäntö, Tsaari työmiehenä, herätti "vilkasta
tunnustusta", mutta huone oli puolillaan. Silloin Ida Basilier, joka
edellisellä viikolla oli antanut hyvästijättö-konsertteja
pohjoisemmissa kaupungeissa, tuli Turkuun ja lupautui esiintymään
neljä kertaa Rosinana. Ensi ilta 12/10 oli "soitannollinen juhlahetki",
ja laulajatarta tervehdittiin riemuisella suosiolla. Kuulijain joukossa
nähtiin Fredrik Pacius ja madame Trebelli. Sittemmin annettiin
Sevillan Parranajaja vielä kaksi kertaa, mutta neljäs jäi sikseen erään
toisen esiintyjän pahoinvoinnin tähden ja sen sijasta esitettiin 19/10
sekaohjelma: Violetta (1:nen näytös), Trubaduri (misererekohtaus)
ja Jeannetten häät. Näistä näytännöistä tuotti kaksi ensimäistä
kumpikin lähes 1,100, mutta kolmas vain 432 ja neljäs 587 mk. —
Lähtiessään laulajatar lupasi palata uutena vuonna vieraillakseen
Helsingissä ja oli hän silloin vielä esiintyvä nti Basilierina, sillä häät
lykkääntyivät kesäkuuhun 1878. — Samaan aikaan kun Ida Basilier
lauloi Turussa, tiesivät sanomalehdet kertoa, että B. Reinhold oli
saanut valmiiksi hänen muotokuvansa. Tämä maalaus, jossa
taiteilijatar on esitetty Rosinana, oli syntynyt Suomalaisen teatterin
ystävien tilauksesta ja säilytetään sitä nyt Kansallisteatterin
lämpiössä. Tsaari työmiehenä meni vielä kerran 21/10, mutta kun
tämä ooppera ei herättänyt suurempaa mieltymystä, sai Hahl, joka
oli niin oivallisesti esittänyt pormestarin osan, lähteä Dresdeniin
jatkamaan lauluopintojaan, ja ohjelmaan otettiin Faust, nti Ingman
Margaretana. Tällä oopperalla olikin parempi menestys: ensi ilta
antoi 744 ja toinen 1,229 mk, se on suurimman tulon koko aikana.
Nti Ingmanin sanotaan esittäneen roolinsa "hyvin kauniisti" ja
niinikään Kiljanderin kauniisti ja voimakkaasti laulaneen ja
vaikuttavasti näytelleen Valentinina, jota paitse nti Helene Conradi
Siebelinä suuresti miellytti yleisöä sympaattisella laulullaan ja sirolla
näyttelemisellään. Margaretan osaa nti Ingman näytteli ensi kerran
ja nti Conradin Siebel oli hänen varsinainen debyyttinsä, josta
sanomalehdet — kuvaavasti kyllä — eivät katsoneet olevan syytä
edeltäkäsin mainita sanaakaan, vaikka jälkimäinen laulajatar oli
Turusta kotoisin.[115] Köörejä sanotaan heikoiksi, ja antaa Å. P:n
arvostelija ansaitun letkauksen turkulaisille avustajille, jotka
lupauksistaan huolimatta eivät viitsineet käydä harjotuksissa.

Näinä päivinä Bergbom oli palannut Helsinkiin puheosaston luokse,

ja hän oli tuskin poissa, kun kävi ilmi, mikä henki Turussa vallitsi
oopperaa kohtaan. Kun Åbo Underrättelserissä (26/10) muuan
lähettäjä lausui toivomuksen — jota Å. P. puolestaan noudatti — että
lehdissä julaistaisiin lyhyt selonteko oopperatekstin sisällyksestä,
toimitus arveli, että siitä oli sangen vähän hyötyä "sille yleisölle, jolle
oopperaesitykset lähinnä ovat tarkoitetut". Toisin sanoen toimituksen
mielestä näytännöt olivat ainoastaan suomenkielisiä varten, jotka
tietysti eivät ruotsinkielisiä sanomalehtiä lukeneet. Mutta kumminkin
sama lehti seuraavana päivänä ehdotti, että poistettaisiin se 50
pennin korotus kutakin pilettiä kohti, joka tavan mukaan oli ollut
määrättynä oopperanäytännöistä. Ennen se ehkä oli ollut oikeutettu,
kun oopperayritys oli uusi ja varsinkin kun Emmy Strömer oli
houkutellut yleisöä teatteriin, mutta nyt kun uteliaisuuden aika on
ohi, yleisö ei mielellään maksanut tuota korotusta.[116] Tämän
johdosta Bohuslav Hrimaly hyvin puutteellisella ruotsinkielellä kirjoitti
Bergbomille kirjeen, joka ilmaisee oikein etelämaalaista kiihtymystä.
Hänestä ooppera oli joutunut "petoeläinten luolaan", ja koska siellä
ainoastaan Ida Basilier ja Emmy Achté kelpaavat, olisi parasta olla
kokonaan näyttelemättä Turussa taikka lyhentää oloaikaa niin paljo
kuin mahdollista. "Se on meidän yhteinen ajatuksemme." Kirjoittajan
mielestä on koko oopperayritystä loukattu, ja syynä on se, että
lauletaan suomeksi — sentähden sitä häväistään! — Ymmärrettävästi
teatterin oli mahdotonta alentaa vanhoja hintoja; kun
päiväkustannukset nousivat 330 à 350 markkaan, ei tottakaan paljo
saatu puhdasta rahaa tavallisista iltatuloista.
 Marraskuu alkoi kolmella Martha-näytännöllä (2/11-6/11). Esitys
oli "mainio, eloisa ja reipas". Neidit Lagus ja Braxén ja Navrátil olivat
oivallisia (ensi iltana huudettiin ensin mainittu neljä kertaa esiin);
mutta tulojen keskimäärä ei noussut 788 mk korkeammalle. Sitten oli
Faust annettava, mutta neitien Ingmanin ja Laguksen pahoinvoinnin
tähden oli ilmoitus kaksi kertaa peruutettava ja ooppera meni vasta
14/11. Tuli niin kaksi Stradella-näytäntöä 16/11 ja 18/11, nti
Wikström Leonorana; mutta huolimatta Navrátilin miellyttävästä
laulusta olivat huoneet tavallista huonommat (297 ja 613 mk).
Parempi onni oli Taikahuilulla — Lydia Lagus Paminana ja Naëmi
Ingman Yön kuningattarena —, jonka kolmesta ensimäisestä
näytännöstä tulot nousivat melkein yhtä korkealle kuin Martha-
illoista. Kun vertaa Mozartin ihanaa oopperaa Flotowin Marthaan ja
ottaa huomioon että kummankin esitystä arvosteltiin yhtä
kiitettävästi, niin on huoneiden yhtäläisyys hämmästyttävä. Å. P.
sanookin sen johdosta, että "yleisön välinpitämättömyys on
semmoinen, että tuskin paraskaan musiikki vetää sitä teatteriin". Kun
Martha oli esitetty vielä kerran, otettiin Musta Domino esiin, mutta
kaksi iltaa 30/11 ja 2/12 riitti näyttämään ettei sekään "vetänyt".

Oli siis päästy joulukuun alkuun. Silloin taiteilijapari Achté tuli

vierailemaan muutamiksi illoiksi. Ensin rva Achté esiintyi Paminana
(Taikahuilu) 5/12, sitte kaksi kertaa Normana 7/12 ja 9/12 ja vihdoin
Luciana 11/12. Ensimäinen näistä illoista, Å. P. sanoo, voitti kaikki
edelliset niin taiteellisen jalo oli laulajattaren esitys. Toisina iltoina
hän lauloi osia, joissa häntä oli ennen kuultu Turussa; mutta
taiteellisuus oli nyt kypsyneempää ja ylevämpää. Suurin näyttää
innostus olleen ensimäisenä Norma-iltana, jolloin loppukuvaelman
esitys oli aivan erinomainen, ja taiteilijatar huudettiin esiin 15 kertaa.
Mutta kuulijakunta, joka oli näin innostunut, ei täyttänyt puoltakaan
huonetta! "Olemmehan jo nähneet (sitt!) oopperan, on täällä tapana
lausua", kertoo Å. P. Muina iltoina oli huone kumminkin lähes täysi.

Vihdoin 14/12 ja 16/12 annettiin ohjelmistolle kokonaan uusi

ooppera, nimittäin Halévyn Juutalaistyttö, ja se menestyi sangen
hyvin. Siinä esiintyi pääosassa (Rachel) Lydia Lagus, suorittaen
tehtävänsä samalla kertaa draamallisen voimakkaasti ja taiteellisen
hillitysti. Laulajatar voitti itsensä ja hänen osakseen tuli mitä vilkkain
suosio, mutta oikeutettua tunnustusta saivat myöskin Navrátil
Eleazarina sekä Bergholm ja nti Ingman osissaan eikä vähimmin
kapellimestari Hrimaly, joka oli johtanut harjotuksia. Väkeä oli näissä
melkein yhtä paljo kuin lähinnä edellisissä. — Viimeiset kaksi
näytäntöä 18/12 ja 19/12, joissa esitettiin Ernani, Bruno Holm Carlo
I:nä, olivat taasen vähemmän käytyjä.

Pitkä, kolmatta kuukautta kestänyt Turussa olo oli loppunut.

Viimeisenä iltana teatterin ystävät kutsuivat seurueen jäsenet
tavanmukaisiin pitoihin, joissa tri A. W. Jahnsson, lääninsihteeri N.
Schlüter, pastori K. R. Malmström y.m. esittivät maljoja Suomalaiselle
oopperalle, neideille Ingman ja Lagus, K. Bergbomille, rva Achtélle ja
nti Basilierille y.m. Mutta kumminkin kävi juhlassa huhu, että
Suomalainen ooppera ei enää koskaan tulisi käymään Turussa, ja
huhu oli tosi. Seurueen siellä olon laskettiin tuottaneen 6,500 à
7,000 markkaa tappiota! "Oopperan jäsenet", Jalava sanoo
muistiinpanoissaan, "viihtyivät huonosti Turussa ja tulivat sieltä
ilomielin pois." — Vanha Turku siis ei ollut tehnyt mitään sen
perikadon välttämiseksi, joka uhkasi kotimaista laulunäyttämöä, vaan
päinvastoin enentänyt sen välttämättömyyttä. — Nyt palatkaamme
puheosaston luokse, joka samaan aikaan oli näytellyt
pääkaupungissa.
 Puheosaston ensi näytäntö Helsingissä oli 28/10. Huone oli
jotenkin hyvä ja ohjelman kahdesta näytelmästä, Puolan juutalainen
ja Herkules, varsinkin edellinen vastaanotettiin suosiolla. Vilho, jonka
esitys pääroolissa oli "tositaiteellinen ja tarkkaan punnittu",
huudettiin esiin useita kertoja. Seuraava näytäntö — Kiven Karkurit
— 31/10 sattui pahalla säällä ja sitä syytettiin huonosta huoneesta.
Tämän helsinkiläisille uuden näytelmän esitys näyttäytyi vielä
epäkypsäksi. "Parhaiten täytti tehtävänsä nti Avellan, joka antoi
eheän kuvan Elmasta. Elman sisällisen taistelun, kun tämä
pelastaakseen isänsä kovasta kohtalosta, lupaa mennä vaimoksi
Niilolle, esittää hän niin pontevan draamallisesti, että vanhempikin
näyttelijä voisi sitä kadehtia." Nti Aalberg Hannana oli suloinen ja
sievä. Enemmän huvitti yleisöä Enon rahat 2/11 ja 4/11.
Näytteleminen oli kauttaaltaan tasaista ja ansiokasta. Kiitoksia
jaettiin Vilholle Plumet enona, Lundahlille Galazou asianajajana, nti
Aalbergille pirteänä Paulinena ja Kalliolle vanhana everstinä. Tuli sitte
7/11 ohjelma, jossa ensimäinen kappale, Scriben 1-näytöksinen Ulos
ikkunasta, oli ihan uusi, toinen, Kukka kultain kuusistossa,
ohjelmiston vanhimpia, mutta uuden viehätysvoiman saanut uuden
kukkasen, nti Aalbergin, kautta ja kolmas, Herkules, parhaiten
miellytti yläilmojen yleisöä.

Näissä näytännöissä oli ollut vähän taikka kohtalaisesti väkeä,

mutta molemmista Daniel Hjort-illoista 9/11 ja 11/11 alkaen
sanotaan yleisön käyneen lukuisammaksi. Tämän murhenäytelmän
esitys oli, U. S:n mukaan, nyt kypsyneempi kuin keväällä. Lundahl
nimiroolissa saa mairittelevan arvostelun, että, jos luonnonvikoja
voisi korjata ja puhetapansa olisi selvempi, hänen luomansa
"kunnialla lähestyisi sitä kuvaa, jonka Raa vainaja antoi" samasta
draamasankarista. Rva Aspegren näytteli Katria "niin haltiokkaalla
voimalla, ettei saata olla sitä ihmettelemättä. Hänen kostonhimonsa
on kaikessa kauheudessaan sentään inhimillinen; hän raivoaa, mutta
se on vaimon raivoa, jota kyyneleet joskus sammuttavat." Nti
Avellaniakin kiitetään, mutta arvellaan hänen tehneen Sigridin liian
itsetietoiseksi, koska tämä kypsyy naiseksi vasta silloin kun Daniel
Hjort on ilmaissut petoksensa, ja "sentähden miellyttää nti Avellan
meitä enimmän ruutiholvikohtauksessa, jossa hän näyttelee tarkalla,
traagillisella aistilla". Rva Lundahl oli melkein liian nuori Klaus
Flemingin leskeksi samoin kuin Leino Stålarmiksi. Böök oli miehekäs
ja kaunis Juhana Fleming. — Sen jälkeen 14/11 esitettiin kaksi
Helsingissä uutta näytelmää: Ohdakkeet ja laakeri ja Natalia ja
Nadeschda. Edellisessä näytteli Lundahl ansiokkaasti kuvanveistäjä
Rollan osaa ja Ida Aalberg onnistui hyvin poikaroolissa, reippaana
Stefanona; jälkimäisessä Vilho oli verraton vanha kauppias ja nti
Avellan näytteli hienosti vallattomuudessaan suloista tyttöhupakkoa
Nadeschdaa, osottaen kykyä koomillisellakin alalla — Nataliana oli nti
Rosendalilla ensimäinen itsenäinen tehtävä, josta suoriutui aika
hyvin. Seuraavana kahtena iltana 16/11 ja 18/11 annettiin Sirkka.
Päärooli oli rva Aspegrenilla, mutta U. S:n mukaan ei se ollut hänen
parhaimpiansa; häneltä puuttui luontevaa raittiutta ja lopussa hän oli
liian herkkäluontoinen. Leino (Landrin) näytteli melko hyvin
harrastaen oikeaa luonnekuvausta. Myöskin Törmäsen Didier oli
paikottain onnistunut, rva Lundahl oivallinen ylpeänä Madelonina ja
nti Savolainen parempi muori Fadet kuin oli osattu odottaa, varsinkin
kohtauksessa ukko Barbeaun kanssa. — Kun 21/11 menestyksellä oli
annettu hupaiset Yhdistysjuhla ja Ulos akkunasta, seurasi 23/11
Nummisuutarit (Vilhon hyväksi) ja tavallisuuden mukaan se
houkutteli lukuisan yleisön teatteriin. Leino näytteli Eskoa, "niin
erinomaisen raittiilla huumorilla ja niin hyvällä taiteellisella aistilla,
että tuohon 'tarhapöllöön' oikein rakastuu", Vilho nummisuutarina oli
"niin elävä ja luonteva kuva kansamme keskuudesta, että jokainen
meistä hänessä näkee vanhan hyvän tuttavan", ja Kallio oli "entistä
oivallisempi Sepeteuksena". — Katarina Howard 29/11 ei näy
herättäneen enempää huomiota kuin näytännöt 30/11 ja 2/12, joissa
paitse muuta näyteltiin Kosijat (uutuus Helsingissä) ja Kihlaus. Mutta
sen jälkeen tuli koko tämän näytäntösarjan merkillisimmät. Antti
Jalava (Almberg), joka, edellisenä vuonna oleskeltuaan Unkarissa,
1876 julkaisemalla etevän teoksensa "Unkarin maa ja kansa" oli
laskenut tukevan pohjan sille heimokansojen toisiinsa
tutustuttamista tarkoittavalle välittäjätoimelle, jota hän koko
elämänsä on harrastanut, oli teatteria varten suomentanut nuorena
kuolleen unkarilaisen runoilijan E. Tóthin kansannäytelmän
Kylänheittiö, ja tämä kappale, jota pidetään kenties parhaimpana
unkarilaisena kansankuvauksena, esitettiin 5/12 ensi kerran
suomalaisella näyttämöllä. Näytelmä menestyi niin hyvin, että se
annettiin kaikkiaan neljä kertaa peräkkäin hyville huoneille. Ensi
illasta lausutaan U. S:ssa.

"Kylänheittiö saattoi meidät keskelle Unkarin kansanelämää, jonka

sekä hyviä että huonoja puolia siinä elävästi kuvataan. Se oli uutta,
outoa, ennen näkemätöntä ja sentähden erittäin miellyttävää.
Ylimalkaan sopii sanoa, että näyttelijämme hyvin menestyivät tässä
uudessa maailmassa, — sen kenties heimolaisuus vaikutti. Nuo
kauniit kansallispuvut, omituiset kansallislaulut, kaikki teki, että
yleisö suurella mielihyvällä seurasi tätä näytelmää, joka epäilemättä
monta kertaa on täyttävä suomalaisen teatterin katsojarivit."

Kun näytelmä oli annettu viimeisen kerran 11/12, arvosteltiin

esitystä seikkaperäisemmin. Lundahlia sanotaan pulskaksi
Göndöriksi, "kylänheittiöksi", joka näytteli pontevuudella ja taidolla,
ollen onnistunein toisessa näytöksessä; Vilho kuvasi hyvin
lurjusmaisen Gonoszin, hän oli tyydyttävän koomillinen, mutta olisi
saanut olla vilkkaampi. Kallion Feledin olisi pitänyt olla ylpeämpi,
mutta Böök oli uljas Lajos ja Leino kelpo Jóska. Rva Aspegren
perehtyi vähitellen Finum Rózsin hieman epäselvään rooliin ja esitti
sen sitte sillä omituisella kevytmielisyydellä, joka luonteeseen
kuuluu. Niinikään mainitaan rva Lundahlin aika hyvin kuvanneen
nuorta hilpeätä unkarilaisvaimoa, ja nti Stenberg oli mestarillinen
verraten pienessä tehtävässään. Kaikista etevin oli kuitenkin nti Ida
Aalberg, joka, U. S. sanoo, "kaikista kappaleessa ilmestyvistä
henkilöistä veti suurimman mieltymyksen puoleensa, ja täydestä
syystä, sillä hänen esityksensä oli puhdas, hieno ja tunteellinen ja
hän oli todella viehättävä Boriska".

Tositeossa Kylänheittiön Boriska oli tulevan suuren näyttelijättären

ensimäinen varsinainen näyttämöllinen menestys, se, jota sittemmin
on ollut tapa mainita hänen taiteellisen voittokulkunsa lähtökohdaksi.
Itsekin hän on, taiteensa huipulle saavuttuaan, lausunut, että hänen
edellisistä rooleistaan ei kannata puhua. Ohimennen merkittäköön,
että H. D., joka ei suinkaan ollut suonut suurta huomiota saatikka
suosiota Suomalaiselle teatterille, tällä kertaa puhkesi
tunnustukseen: "Ida Aalbergilla on yhdellä kertaa sekä harvinaisen
kaunis vartalo ja miellyttävä ulkonäkö että syvä tunteellisuus, jonka
ohella ääni ja lausuminen hämmästyttää puhtaudellaan ja sulollaan."

Sen jälkeen annettiin vain kaksi näytäntöä, nimittäin 13/12 W.

Soinin kirjoittama alkuteos Kevään oikkuja, Onhan pappa sen sallinut
ja Kihlaus sekä 16/12 K. S. Suomalaisen alkuteos Setä, Kevään
oikkuja ja Herkules. Molemmat uudet 1-näytöksiset huvinäytelmät
eivät olleet miellyttämättä yleisöä, ne kun olivat sujuvalla kynällä
laadittuja kuvauksia, edellinen suoremmin elämästä otettu,
jälkimäinen hullunkurisempi. Setä kappaleessa kunnostivat itseään
rva Aspegren, Vilho ja Kallio, Kevään oikuissa neidit Avellan ja
Hacklin.

Tälläkin kertaa oli puheosasto herättänyt tyytymystä niissä, jotka

myötätunnolla seurasivat sen kehitystä. Emilie Bergbom kirjoitti siitä
28/11 nti Elfvingille:

"Me valmistamme täällä nyt mieltäkiinnittävää unkarilaista

kansannäytelmää, Kylänheittiötä, ja saat uskoa että on vaikea ylen
pienillä varoilla toimittaa näyttämölle kahta suurta kappaletta
[Juutalaistyttö toinen]. Ainoa lohdutukseni on, että en kauvan enää
tarvitse kärsiä oopperan takia. Aika hupaista on ollut pitää
puheosasto täällä tänä aikana ja oikein raskaalta tuntuu että sen
täytyy matkustaa kahden viikon päästä."

Väkeä oli teatterissa kuitenkin käynyt huononpuoleisesti, vaikka

kyllä "enemmän kuin ennen". Korkein tulo oli 650, alin 180;
keskimääräinen 300 mk — siis vähempi kuin parhaimmissa
maaseutukaupungeissa. — Kun teatterin ystävät olivat viettäneet
rattoisan illan seurueen kanssa, lähti se Tampereelle.

*****

Jouluksi ooppera palasi Helsinkiin ja alkoi toimensa toisena

joulupäivänä Marthalla. Sitten esitettiin Taikahuilu kolme kertaa
peräkkäin, 28/12 ja 30/12 sekä uudenvuodenpäivänä, ja Ernani
yhden kerran, 4/1. Näistä näytännöistä ei ole erikoista sanottavaa.
Kuulijakunta oli verraten harvalukuinen — teatterin uskollinen
ystäväpiiri, joka ilolla toivotti rakkaan oopperansa tervetulleeksi
takaisin.[117] Papagenona esiintyi rva Aura Thuring, jota pitkän ajan
päästä jälleen mielihyvällä nähtiin ja kuultiin näyttämöllä. Viime
mainitun näytännön jälkeen tuli "oopperakonsertti" yliopiston
juhlasalissa, joka sekin on luettava niihin alkajaisiin, joiden aikana
talvi- ja kevätkauden päätapahtumaa, Alma Fohströmin ensi kerran
esiintymistä näyttämöllä, valmistettiin.

Tämä laulajatar oli 11/12 palannut Italian matkaltaan ja nähtävästi

täysin toipuneena, koska hän jo 15/12 antoi laulajaiset yliopiston
juhlasalissa. Huone oli ihan täysi ja yleisö aivan ihastunut. Samoin
menestyi hengellinen konsertti Nikolainkirkossa 27/12. Nyt ryhdyttiin
harjotuksiin näyttämöllä esiintymistä varten, ja oli nuori "diva", joka
tähän saakka oli laulanut ainoastaan konserteissa, ensi kerran astuva
yleisön eteen Margaretana. Se tapahtui keskiviikkona 9/1 ja ilta tuli
yhdeksi loistavimpia mitä vanhassa Arkadiassa ennen tai
myöhemmin on nähty. Jo edellisenä päivänä loppuivat piletit, mutta
tavalla tai toisella moni vielä jälestäpäinkin hankki itselleen pääsyn
teatteriin, niin että poliisimestari vaivoin saatiin olemaan
harventamatta katsojain rivejä. Itse näytännöstä sanoo
Morgonbladet:

"Oli riemupäivä debytantille ja yleisölle; edellinen voi olla täysin

tyytyväinen menestykseensä ja jälkimäisellä oli ilo jälleen tervehtiä
etevää kykyä suomalaiselle näyttämölle. Jo ensi kerran astuessaan
sisään nti Fohström vastaanotettiin lämpimillä kättentaputuksilla,
juveliaaria herätti suosionosotus-myrskyn ja kolmannen näytöksen
lopussa nuori laulajatar huudettiin esiin useita kertoja ja hänelle
ojennettiin komea kukkakimppu; näytännön lopussa seurasi vielä
esiinhuutoja ja kymmenkunta kukkavihkoa. Kunnianosotus oli siis
täydellinen laatuaan, mutta kyllä nti Fohström lauloikin
verrattomasti: aistillinen sulosointu, hieno musikaalinen
vivahduttaminen, sydämellisyys ja lämpö, kaikki yhteensä teki hänen
laulustaan erinomaisen taideluoman. Nti Fohström, joka lauloi
osansa italiankielellä, oli käsittänyt tehtävänsä vakavasti, sen näki ja
kuuli kaikesta; hän oli mitä seikkaperäisimmin tutkinut roolinsa,
niinkuin se tekee joka tietää päämääränsä ja mitä taide vaatii. Kun
nti Fohström tulee yhtä vapaaksi näyttelemisessään kuin hän jo on
laulussaan, kun liikunnot ja kasvojeneleet, joita laulajatar kaikella
huolella oli opetellut, aikaa voittaen enemmän syntyvät
innostuksesta ja itse olosuhteista, silloin — eikä siihen pitkää aikaa
tarvittane — on nti Fohström täydellinen näyttämöllinen taiteilija." —
—

Paitse nti Fohströmiä palkittiin hänen rinnallaan loistavasta

näytännöstä vilkkailla suosionosotuksilla Navrátil — Faust, Lydia
Lagus — Siebel ja Holm — Valentin. Erittäin huomattiin
viimemainittu, joka ensi kerran ja varsin kauniisti lauloi osansa. —
Niinkuin tavallista teatterin merkki-iltoina, kävivät ylioppilaat
myöhemmin serenaadilla tervehtimässä päivän sankaritarta.

Alma Fohströmin debyytti toi vihdoin myötätuulen oopperalle. Ensi

illan tulo nousi 1,984 markkaan — enemmän kuin koskaan
lukuunottamatta keisarinäytäntöä v. 1876, ja useimmat seuraavat
tuottivat koko joukon toista tuhatta markkaa. — Toisena Faust-iltana
11/1 oli laulajattaren esitys jo varmempi ja täysi huone yhtä
innostunut kuin ensi kerralla. Ja kolmantena — mutta kolmas ei
tullutkaan kohta. Onhan elämässä usein niin, että kun asiat
kääntyvät hyvään päin saadaan enemmänkin kun on uskallettu
odottaa. Niin nytkin. Rva Achtékin tuli lisäämään myötätuulen
voimaa. Hän esiintyi Paminana Taikahuilussa 13/1 ja, kun Faust oli
annettu kolmannen kerran 16/1, Normassa 18/1. Emme tarvitse
sanoa, että nerokas taiteilija innostutti kuulijakuntaa, jonka mielestä
hän esitti molemmat roolit entistä kypsyneemmin ja sillä
aitodraamallisella hengellä, jonka lempeä luonto oli hänelle suonut —
eikä samassa määrässä kellekään toiselle suomalaiselle
laulajattarelle. Sitte seurasi 20/1 ja 23/1 neljäs ja viides Faust-
näytäntö, joissa yleisön ihastus ei ollut laimeampi kuin edellisissä.

Tässä näytäntöjen välissä on mainittava pari teatteria koskevaa

tapahtumaa. Lokakuun 21 p. pidetyssä yhtiökokouksessa oli
väliaikainen johtokunta suostunut pysymään toimessaan siksi kun
yhtiön säännöt olivat tulleet vahvistetuiksi, ja tämän tapahduttua oli
19/1 uusi kokous, jossa valittiin varsinaisen johtokunnan jäseniksi: K.
Bergbom, Alex. Streng, A. Almberg, K. F. Wahlström ja V. Löfgren.
Mainitun suostumuksen ehtona oli, että eräät yhtiön osakkaat
sitoutuisivat yhdessä väliaikaisen (ja myöskin varsinaisen)
johtokunnan jäsenten kanssa vastaamaan näytäntövuotena
mahdollisesti syntyvästä tappiosta. Ne, jotka allekirjoittivat
semmoisen sitoumuksen, olivat: A. Almberg, Jaakko Forsman, V.
Löfgren, K. F. Wahlström, Alex. Streng, E. G. Palmén, Wald.
Churberg, Yrjö Koskinen, K. F. Ignatius, Robert Rissanen, S.
Aejmelaeus, J. Ekroos, B. F. Godenhjelm, A. W. Mélart, A. Ahlström,
Afr. Kihlman, O. Donner, W. V. Forsman, Th. Rein, Z. J. Cleve, J.
Krohn.

Tiistaina 22/1 oli ylioppilastalolla teatterin matka-apurahaston

hyväksi suuret arpajaiset — edelläkävijä useille samanlaisille
yrityksille, joilla varoja koottiin taidelaitostamme varten. Voittoja
vastaanottivat rvat D. Wallenius, K. Ekelund, I. Ekroos, E. Löfgren ja
A. Thuring sekä neidit J. Molander ja H. Palmén. Onni oli myötäinen
— se nähdään ei ainoastaan sanomista vaan myöskin Emilie
Bergbomin kirjeestä nti Elfvingille (1/2):

"Yhdessä tunnissa myytiin noin 7,000 arpaa à 1 mk. ja 2,000 olisi

varmaan mennyt lisää, mutta emme uskaltaneet panna niin paljo.
Noin 420 markasta johtokunta oli ostanut voittoja; useimmat
maalaajamme [A. von Becker, Hj. Munsterhjelm, S. Falkman, Fanny
Churberg, B. A. Godenhjelm, S. Keinänen] lahjoittivat jonkun taulun
ja muutoin tuli kauniita voittoja tahoilta, joilta sitä olisi voinut
vähimmän odottaa; oletan puhtaan voiton nousevan 6,800 mk. —
Oopperan tulevaisuus on vielä epätietoinen; fennomaaniset yritykset
ovat kumminkin yleensä varsin sitkeitä. Joulukuun alussa päätettiin
että Morgonbladet välttämättömästi oli lakkautettava, mutta neljä
päivää myöhemmin ilmoitettiin, että sitä jatketaan 'laajennetussa
muodossa'. Toivokaamme ettei oopperan käy samoin. Minulla
yksityisesti ei ole mitään sen kuolemaa vastaan — päin vastoin.
Meillä on aivan liiaksi ja liian rasittavaa työtä — minulla ilman
penninkään korvausta ja Kaarlolla ei suinkaan liian runsaasta
palkkiosta, kun sitä vastoin hyvin keskinkertaiset jäsenet eivät tiedä
kuinka suuria palkkoja heidän on vaatiminen. — Hupaista on että
Alma Fohström on meillä; minä puolestani luen hänelle suureksi
ansioksi, että hän niin erinomaisella lujuudella esiintyy meillä,
huolimatta loistavista tarjouksista, joita hänelle on tehty toiselta
taholta. Maaliskuun alussa hän lähtee, ja silloin Ida Basilier tulee
sijaan. — Nyt olemme, Kaarlo ja minä, taas terveinä; olen ollut
huononlainen kolme ja Kaarlo pari viikkoa." —

Viidennessä Faust-näytännössä oli vähemmän väkeä (848 mk.) —

jota ei sovi ihmetellä kun ajattelee että ooppera jo oli annettu yli 30
kertaa —, sentähden oli uutta tarjottava. Juutalaistyttö, jota
Helsingissä ei koskaan oltu kuultu, meni 25/1. Turussa oli esityksessä
vielä huomattu epätasaisuuksia; nyt se suoritettiin niin ansiokkaasti,
että uusi laakeri liitettiin lauluosaston entisiin. Nti Lagus tulkitsi
Rachelin traagillista osaa sekä lauluun että näyttelemiseen nähden
yhtä viehättävästi kuin sydäntäkouristavasti, "osottaen että hänestä
saattoi tulla ensimäisen suuruuden tahti", ja yleisö ilmaisi
myrskyisesti ihastuksensa. Mutta sen ohella saivat runsasta
tunnustusta nti Ingman — Eudora ja erittäinkin Navrátil — Eleazar,
jolla jälkimäisellä tässä oli kenties paras roolinsa. Navrátilille, jonka
hyväksi näytäntö annettiin, ojennettiin laakeriseppele. Kardinaalina
esiintyi ansiokkaasti Bergholm ja Leopold prinssinä Himberg
miellyttäen laulullaan, mutta tapansa mukaan näytellen elottomasi!
Kun muutkin esiintyjät ja köörit hyvin pitivät puoliaan, oli
kokonaisuuden vaikutus tyydyttävintä laatua. Lopuksi Hrimalykin
huudettiin esiin. Sama ooppera esitettiin 27/1 ja 30/1, mutta silloin
oli rva Achté Rachelina. Traagillisena roolina tehtävä oli kuin luotu
tälle laulajattarelle, ja hänen esityksensä muodostuikin niin
taiteelliseksi ja vaikuttavaksi, että sentapaista harvoin nähdään.
Jälkimäinen mainituista näytännöistä oli viimeinen missä rva Achté
tällä kertaa esiintyi kokonaisessa roolissa, ja hyvin lukuisa yleisö
ilmaisi esiinhuudoilla ja kukkalaitteilla täysin määrin ihastuksensa. —
Helmikuun 1 p oli Bergholmin hyväksi erikoinen näytäntö, jossa
esitettiin osia Faust-, Taikahuilu- ja Trubadurioopperoista ja siinä
kuultiin samana iltana kaikki etevimmät laulajattaret: rva Achté sekä
neidit Fohström, Lagus ja Ingman. Ensimainittu esiintyi viimeiseksi
Leonorana.

Samaan aikaan kun Faust annettiin kuudennen kerran, 3/1, luettiin

Morgonbladetissa B:n kirjoittama arvostelu nti Fohströmistä
Margaretana, josta otamme pääkohdan. Huomautetaan että
laulajatar, toisin kuin Ida Basilier, edustaa etelämaalaista, Gounodin
musiikin mukaista käsitystä Gretchenistä, arvostelija lausuu:

"Jättäen sikseen perusjohteellisen eroavaisuuden roolin

käsittämisessä on tunnustettava, että nti Fohström on luonut jotakin
lähes mallikelpoista. — Se lämpö ja sydämellisyys, joka ensi iltana
antoi hänen laululleen niin vastustamattoman sulouden, on joka
kerralta yhä enemmän määrännyt hänen näyttelemistäänkin, tehden
roolin tulkitsemisen niin eheämuotoiseksi, että se on myönnettävä
oikeaksi taiteelliseksi voitoksi. Varsinkin juveliaarialla nti Fohström on
voittanut yleisön vilkkaimman tunnustuksen, emmekä kiellä, että
hieno vivahduttaminen ja äänen kristalliheleys, eritoten siinä kohden,
on kaiken kiitoksen yläpuolella, mutta samalla uskallamme
huomauttaa, että vielä perjantain ja sunnuntain näytännöissä eräs
oikean käden liikunto Gretchenin katsoessa peiliin sekä suuri liikunto
aarian lopussa muistuttivat plastiikkaopinnoista. — Sitä vastoin
voimme hänen käsitykselleen viimeisissä näytöksissä antaa mitä
ehdottomimmat kiitoslauseet. Tässä hänen näyttelemisensä oli
sydäntäkouristavaa ja tarmokasta, astumatta esteettisen
sopusuhtaisuuden yli; tositeossa siinä nähtiin lapsekas, innostunut
tyttö, joka onnettomuudessaan esiintyi ihastuttavampana kuin itse
korkeimman onnensa päivinä." — —

Tällä aikaa oli valmiiksi harjotettu uusi ooppera, Bellinin

Unissakävijä, jossa nti Fohströmillä oli toinen debyyttiroolinsa. Se
esitettiin ensi kerran 8/2, ja päämielenkiinto kohdistui luonnollisesti
Aminan osaan, jossa suosittu laulajatar esiintyi. Morgonbladetin
mukaan "rohkeimmat toivomukset täyttyivätkin alkuperäisen ja
soman sekä tarpeen tullen todella sydäntäkouristavankin kuvauksen
kautta, jolla hän osasi suorittaa tehtävänsä, ja erittäinkin
erinomaisen laulun kautta, jota ei voinut kyllin kiittää ja jossa
taiteilijattaren koloratuuri näyttäytyi mitä oivallisimmassa valossaan.
Toisetkin, nti Ingman — Elisa sekä Navrátil — Alvino ja Kiljander —
Rudolf, saivat ansaittua tunnustusta, mutta enimmät
suosionosotukset tuli tietysti nti Fohströmin osalle." — Toisen
näytännön jälkeen 10/2 lisätään:

"Nti Fohström ansaitsee mitä korkeimman kiitoksen Aminastaan,

josta hän laulullaan ja esityksellään yleensä osaa luoda ylen
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com