Scalacronica, 1272-1363
The great majority of all medieval chronicles were written by churchmen. Many of these clergymen had aristocratic upbringings, and many of them served martial kings or noblemen, so it is not surprising that they were often very interested in, and even well-informed about, warfare. Still, the few medieval contemporary histories written by men who were themselves active participants in military campaigns, and who had personal experience of the mechanics and practicalities of fighting, are precious resources for medieval military historians. Jean le Bel’s account of the 1327 campaign, James the Conqueror’s memoirs, the chivalric biography of Don Pero Niño written by his standard-bearer, Rámon Muntaner’s narrative of the adventures of the Catalan Company: these are fascinating texts which keep the reader riveted, and bring us face-to-face with the medieval soldier. The rarest of the rare are the works that connect us with soldiers of relatively minor standing—not counts, constables, or kings, but mere bannerets or simple men-at-arms. The Scalacronica, written by Sir Thomas Gray, constable of Norham Castle, is one of these jewels.
Gray began work on his text while a prisoner of war in Scotland, having been captured in a minor skirmish in 1355. Although the full chronicle provides a universal history beginning with Creation, the sections up to the start of the reign of Edward I (1272) are highly derivative (especially of John of Tynemouth’s Historia aurea) and of limited interest. From that point on, however, Gray offers much material of interest, some of which is now found only in the Scalacronica. For example, he seems (p. xlvii) to have drawn on a now-lost Life of Robert Bruce, and he certainly incorporated stories he received from his father (also named Sir Thomas Gray of Heton, and also constable of Norham) who was a very active participant in the Anglo-Scottish wars from 1296 until at least the 1330s, and quite possibly until 1340. The younger Gray also gave accounts of campaigns he participated in himself, for example Edward III’s Reims campaign of 1359-60.
Specialists in medieval warfare have been making good use of the Scalacronica for a good long time now, but it has not always been easy to do so. The initial publication of the Anglo-Norman text, edited by Joseph Stevenson, had a print run of only 108 copies, and only 290 copies of the 1907 Herbert Maxwell translation (which omitted the sections before the start of the reign of Edward II in 1307) were printed. Thus, the new edition of the Surtees Society, which includes both the French and a facing-page translation, is very welcome. The value of the new edition is also greatly enhanced by Andy King’s excellent introduction and historical notes. King’s research into the careers of both the elder and the younger Sir Thomas Gray enriches the reader’s understanding of the text. King has also done a fine job analyzing the sources used in the composition of the chronicle.
King’s translation is generally sound, despite the difficulty of the source text. Regrettably for members of De re militari, however, the most significant flaws I noted in the translation relate to military terminology. Gray uses glayve as a synonym for “lance,” meaning a man-at-arms. King, however, translates it as “billhooks,” and claims it “refers to footmen equipped with billhooks, halbards or other polearms” (lxiv, 158-9). Courseir, a term for a war-horse which should be translated “courser” or “charger,” King renders as “riding horse” (76-7). Herbisours are “harbingers,” men whose principal duty is to arrange lodgings, and “foragers” is not the best translation for them (53). When Gray says the earl of Pembroke se teint coy, it means he held his position rather than launching an attack, not quite that he “remained calm” (ibid.). The graunt punyes at Crighton Dean was a “large skirmish” or a “big fight,” but not a “great battle” (124-5). Assemblerent means “engaged” (as Maxwell translated it) or “fought together” rather than “attacked” (as King has it)-- a significant distinction because it does not disallow defensive fighting (177). Of course, except for the mistranslation of glayve, none of these distinctions is great enough to seriously impair the reader’s understanding of the narrative, and since the original text is immediately at hand, scholars for whom these nuances are important can easily see for themselves precise what Anglo-Norman words are being employed.
In sum, this is overall a very well-done edition of a wonderful Anglo-Norman text. A copy belongs in the library of any university where medieval history is taught, and any medieval military historian who has not yet encountered the Scalacronica should take advantage of its new accessibility to read the chronicle.
