Paul Murray Kendall and the writing of History

 Paul Murray Kendall was an American academic and writer (1911-1973) who made his name in the 1950s with a very good book on Richard III and others on 15th century history. I have just been reading his book on Warwick the Kingmaker and came across this passage.

On November 9th he entered Westminster Hall, accompanied by a retinue of attendants. Numbers of men of the royal household lounging about the hall glowered upon the party. After Warwick had gone on alone into the council chamber, the King's menials began to jeer at the men who bore the badge of the Ragged Staff. The language grew hot on both sides. Someone drew a dagger. In an instant men were slashing at one another with whatever weapon they had at hand. Up from the pantries and the kitchens streamed servants of the King brandishing knives and cleavers -

In the council chamber Warwick heard desperate cries of 'Warwick! Warwick!' He rushed into the great hall, was immediately beset by men of the royal household intent on making an end of him. Surrounded by his outnumbered retinue he fought for his life. His friends from the council forced their way to his side. Slowly they cut a path down the hall. Once they were in the open air, Warwick and his men made a break for the barges. Just in time they pushed out into the Thames beyond the reach of their pursuers.

This is brilliant writing. He creates a scene and carries the tension and desperation of the moment through his short punchy sentences. He draws a picture of a great hall where most were gathered and a private chamber for the council meeting. The kitchen must have been below stairs. But where did this information come from? Men running up from the pantries and kitchens brandishing knives and cleavers. Really?

So I went back to the sources to find out what people actually wrote at the time:

The xxx vij. yere, the kyng and the quene beyng at Westminster, the ix. day of Nouembre fylle a grete debate betwene Richard ere of Warrewyk and theym of the kynges hous, in so moche that they wolde haue sleyne the erle; and vnnethe he escaped to his barge,

(Stowe Chronicle, ed Davies p. 78)

There is not much to go on here, but the London Chronicle adds a little more detail.

In this yere, after Candelmasse, a man of therle of Warwyk smote a seruaunt of the kynges in Westmynster hall; wherwith the kynges howsold meyny were wroth, and came owte with wepons, and some for hast with spittes, for to haue slayn therle; but the lordes that were his frendes conveyed hym to his barge; how be it many of his howsold meany were hurt. And for this was great labour made to the kyng to have had the seed Erle areasted; but he Incontynently departed the town toward Warwyk.  (Chronicle of London, ed Kingsford)

So this is the source for Murray Kendall's purple passage. The facts we have here are the date, Candlemass - November 9th, the location - Westminster Hall, that one of the earl's men hit one of the king's men, that it got out of hand, that some of the lords friendly to Warwick protected him as he made his way to the barge, that he made a hurried escape.

It seems probable from this account that words were spoken which provoked one of the earl's men to shove or hit the other. There is little doubt that the atmosphere at court was hostile to Warwick, and there were some there whose fathers had been killed three years earlier at the Battle of St Albans. The charge he had come to answer had nothing to do with this. Since tensions were high, many more got involved  and before too long weapons were out. Some grabbed spits, which may have been at hand, but Kendall interprets this as men rising from the kitchens with knives and cleavers. He also supposes that there was a separate council chamber but this is unlikely. The purpose of a great hall was to conduct the king's business in a public theatre. Warwick was there for a dressing down over his piratical behaviour in the English channel. It would not do for this to be done outside the ears of the court.  The hall in any case was not for the general public or even the kitchen staff, who in any case would have been in a separate building in the 15th century; the "below stairs"  kitchen only became common in the 19th century. But the lords and court officials would be in attendance. Whatever justice was to be delivered onto Warwick needed witnesses.

There were lords there who would have happily run through Warwick with a sword, if they dared, but were probably content to stand by. If Warwick was killed in the fracas their hands would be clean. Nevertheless, if this were to happen it would have been a scandal that would be difficult for the monarchy to live down. Perhaps even the myopic Margaret of Anjou could see that. Warwick still had friends at court and they most likely offered him a protective cordon so that he could reach his barge. The atmosphere was certainly hot and the Stowe Chronicle reports that the earl feared for his life.
It is reported here that there were those who pressed the king, probably led by the duke of Somerset,  to have Warwick, arrested, but the bird had flown.

There is no doubt that the writing of Paul Murray Kendall makes for bright and entertaining reading. He adds colour to the narrative, but perhaps there is too much fictional flesh and too little historical bone here, which brings me to the purpose of this post. It is surely the job of the historian to construct some sort of narrative from meagre sources of information. The historian also has to assess the reliability of the source against other known facts. It is a difficult intellectual exercise and will rarely lead to a fluent narrative. The historical novelist is quite free to stretch and embroider and imagine in order to create a satisfactory reading experience. I contend that the historian, however intuitive, will never have this freedom.

This is not to say that history is not subject to changing interpretations; reading the literature on Richard III, for example, over the past 100 years should be sufficient to convince one that a wide range of interpretations of the same event is possible. The evidence does not change (except in rare instances) but new reading of the evidence is always possible, and an historian is quite entitled to argue the case.

As an illustration, it is possible to infer from the above Chronicle entry that the hostility towards Warwick may have had something to do with the first Battle of St Albans in 1455. At that battle two of Warwick's bitter enemies, the earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford were killed. Also done to death was the duke of Somerset, arch rival to the duke of York. Other casualties in this short street battle were light so it is legitimate to suspect that these men were deliberately targeted. However there is no accusation on record to support this suspicion, which is not to say that the suspicion is unfounded. One might therefore wonder if there was more behind this scuffle in 1458 than Warwick's recent freebooting in the Channel. It is a legitimate query, which the historian can raise, but not answer.

To be fair to Paul Murray Kendall, he was well aware of what he was doing. He, when "confronted with a handful of documents—odd moments of personal history fortuitously preserved—[was] forced to make biographical bricks with very little straw." His method, as illustrated in the above passage, is to bring his own detail to the narrative. Which may be fine, but, as I have already indicated, he makes some anachronistic errors. He takes the use of the words "king's servants" in an 18th or 19th century sense as the 'king's menials'. They were more likely court officials - office holders, scribes, guards. Kitchens in the Middle Ages were separate buildings. Fire was a recurrent hazard and if you look at the ruins of any medieval building it is apparent that these buildings were detached. So the idea of kitchen servants rushing upstairs with cleavers and meathooks is pure fiction. So too is the idea that Warwick was off in a separate council chamber when the ruckus started. As I have suggested above it is more likely that Warwick was present in the Great Hall. 

The issue I have with Paul Murray Kendall's presentation is that he describes an event as it happened, rather than as it may have happened. While I agree that such phrases as "it is likely that" or "it is probable that" make for very tedious reading, I contend that it is the historian's job to distinguish between the facts we know and those which are a matter for speculation.