Pedro’s cruelty soon raised new discontent of which Henry was ready to take advantage, while the English prince was too disgusted[36] to support further with his bravery the odious tyranny of the Spanish Nero.a

Towards the close of the year (1367), Henry entered Spain by Roussillon, at the head of a very small force, not exceeding four hundred lances. At first the king of Aragon attempted to arrest his progress through that kingdom, but with little zeal; the soldiers sent to oppose him connived at his passage into Navarre. Having passed the Ebro at Azagra, and set foot on the Castilian territory, he drew a cross on the sand, and by it swore that he would not desist from his undertaking while life remained. The neighbouring inhabitants of Calahorra readily received him within their walls. He was joined by many of the Castilian barons with considerable reinforcements, and by the archbishop of Toledo. Leon was besieged and taken; the Asturias submitted; Illescas, Buytrago, and Madrid opened their gates after a short struggle; and Toledo, which promised a more obstinate resistance, was invested. It is useful to observe that the resistance of these places was the work of the citizens who were generally attached to Pedro; while the barons and hidalgos were generally for Henry. This circumstance gives great weight to the suspicion that, while Pedro ruled the privileged orders with an iron sceptre, he favoured the independence of the people.

The success of the invader roused Pedro to something like activity in defence of his tottering crown. His ally, the king of Granada, was persuaded to arm in his behalf; and to join him with six thousand horse and thirty thousand foot. His own troops did not much exceed seven thousand, but the united force was formidable. Cordova was immediately assailed by the two kings; but the defence was so vigorous, and the loss on the part of the besiegers so severe, that the enterprise was soon abandoned. The troops of Muhammed V returned to Granada; and though they afterwards took the field, they did so, not so much to aid their ally, as to derive some advantage for themselves from the confusion of the times. The operations of the war were now very desultory, though destructive to the kingdom. In the north, Vittoria, Salvatierra, Logroño, and some other places which held for Pedro, submitted to the king of Navarre in preference to Henry—so great was their repugnance to that champion of feudal tyranny. Toledo manfully resisted his assaults. To relieve that important city, which had now been invested nearly twelve months, Pedro left Seville in March, 1369, and passed by Calatrava towards Montiel, with the intention of waiting for some reinforcements advancing from Murcia, before he ventured an action with his rival.

At this time, Bertrand du Guesclin arrived from France with an aid of six hundred lances. Henry now put his little army in motion; was joined by the grand-master of Santiago; and, arriving at Montiel with incredible despatch, he fell on the outposts of his rival, and forced them precipitately into the fortress. With a very inadequate force, Pedro was now besieged in this place, and cut off from all supplies, which yet reached Henry every hour. What added to his difficulties was the want of provisions and of water; so that his men began to desert one by one to the enemy, or retire to their respective homes. In this critical situation he meditated the means of escape.b

After the combat Don Henry took steps to prevent his enemy from escaping from the castle of Montiel, causing the exits to be strictly guarded, and surrounded by a wall of uncemented stones, presumably to prevent any inmate from escaping on horseback.

Mendo Rodriguez of Sanabria, who was with the king, on the strength of having at one time been Du Guesclin’s prisoner, attempted to negotiate with him for the king’s escape. The conference began from the ramparts and was secretly continued at night in the besieger’s camp. Rodriguez offered the French warrior, on the part of his lord, 200,000 doubloons of gold and dominion over towns as important as Almazan, Atienza, Monteagudo, Deza and Seron, if he would assist in the king’s flight and join his party. The prayer was most natural and just from one so distressingly situated; the answer was noble and befitting a knight. Du Guesclin replied that he served in this expedition by order of his lord the king of France, and in the service of the count of Trastamara, and therefore, without dishonour, he could not accede to this prayer; upon which Rodriguez returned to the fortress, suspicion being afterwards held by some as to his sincerity and loyalty in this attempt.

Bertrand related what had occurred to Don Henry, and the bastard with his natural generosity rewarded him by paying him what Rodriguez had offered, though in acting thus Bertrand had but been faithful to his duty and to the dictates of honour. He then induced the Frenchman to continue the negotiations and promise safety to Don Pedro, so that upon the latter’s coming to his tent he might summon thither Don Henry. The Frenchman had some suspicion as to the proceeding being unworthy of a knight, but eventually he conquered his scruples, and acceding to Don Henry’s request entered into the ignoble plot.

The result was that the king, trusting in the safe escort promised by Du Guesclin, left the castle of Montiel, where resistance was hopeless, and where it was impossible to remain as there was even a scarcity of water, and one by one the defenders were deserting. Armed and on horseback he came to Bertrand’s tent, and dismounting entered and said to him: “Mount, for it is time to be away.” Obtaining no reply, the unhappy monarch was alarmed and attempted to remount, but a traitor’s hand detained him, and he was made prisoner with his faithful followers Ferdinand de Castro, Mendo Rodriguez of Sanabria, Garcia Fernandez de Villodre, and others.

The news was speedily carried to Don Henry, if indeed he was not awaiting it near by, and well armed he hurried to the spot where the king was. As this scene took place at night in presence of numerous witnesses, and it was long since they had met, they did not immediately recognise one another. Don Henry being informed of his brother’s presence, the latter confirmed the news with noble arrogance, saying: “’Tis I! ’Tis I!”

Then occurred one of the most terrible scenes related in history for the horror of mankind. Don Henry wounded the king in the face with his dagger, and both grappling they fell to the ground. Don Henry succeeded, either by his own strength or with the assistance of a bystander, in falling on the top and wounding the unhappy king mortally, finally cutting off his head with furious wrath. Thus on March 23rd, 1369, was consummated a great crime against the legitimate king, and a repellent fratricide which, if Don Henry had refrained from presenting himself at that place, would have been avoided. It may be that he had no intention of killing the king with his own hand, and that infuriated by his hateful presence he flung himself upon him precipitately; but he should have foreseen the result, knowing that Pedro was about to become his prisoner through Du Guesclin’s treachery. It may be that the latter was merely actuated by a desire to bring this long war to an end, and secure the throne to Don Henry whom he served, and who had almost succeeded in winning it; but his intervention in this business, which terminated in a most horrible fratricide, was disloyal and unworthy of one whom the French esteem their greatest knight, nor was treachery called for, as Don Pedro must speedily have surrendered.

To conclude, this tragedy was shameful for the principal actors in it, the victim alone being free from taint, and to a certain extent his memory was purified by the shedding of his blood; for had not his tempestuous life come to so untimely an end, we may feel certain that passionate defenders would never have arisen to obliterate the title of “cruel” by which he is and ever will be known in history.j

A FINAL ESTIMATE OF PEDRO THE CRUEL

In recent times, attempts have been made by Mondejar,k and other historical critics, to vindicate the memory of this king, on the ground that his chronicler and contemporary, Pedro López de Ayala,h was a blind partisan of his rival’s, and has injuriously treated his memory. They tell us of a chronicle of this king, written by Don Juan de Castro, bishop of Jaen, in which Pedro is represented as one of the best sovereigns of the age—as one who, while he protected the oppressed, was severe only against his turbulent and lawless barons. There may be some truth in this latter assertion: Pedro, like Richard III of England, whom he partially resembles, was probably no enemy to the humbler orders, but eager only to break the formidable power of the nobles. Even admitting, what is very probable, that his character has been somewhat unfairly treated by Ayala, if one-half the deeds narrated by that author were actually perpetrated by him,—and the careful minuteness with which they are recorded gives them the appearance of authenticity,—he has had but one equal in ferocity, and that one was the czar Ivan IV of Russia. Until Castro’s pretended chronicle is actually produced—and it has been sought for in vain these three hundred years—and compared with Ayala, criticism is compelled to receive the testimony of the latter, confirmed, as it incidentally is, by Froissarti and other contemporary writers. That he was a man of lust, as well as of cruelty, is apparent from the number of his mistresses, to say nothing of his two pretended wives.b

Prosper Mériméem is one of the modern defenders of Pedro, but while his tone is apologetic, his facts leave the resulting opinion only the stronger. Humen admits the black heart of Pedro, but denies that he was exceptionally heartless for that time, and insists that his struggles against the nobles were for the good of the people and his failure to restrain their feudal power a calamity. It is hard, however, to believe that a monstrosity whom even his contemporaries found worthy of the fame of the most cruel of the cruel, could have been moved by any altruistic care for his people, or any motive except ferocious hatred of any resistance to his unutterable selfishness.

It is difficult to find in history a monarch whose reign had not some effort for good, since perfection in vice is as impossible as perfection in virtue. But surely no other king ever deserved less sympathy than Pedro for his failure to check the noblemen in their greed. Surely the feudal lords rarely used their power with better excuse than in protecting for a time the unhappy girl-wife Blanche de Bourbon whom Pedro sought to murder, and finally put to death. And the revolt of Trastamara can only be blamed by those to whom legitimacy of descent is a sacred claim on loyalty, even though the legitimate monarch wield his dagger right and left and have his kinsmen beaten to death with clubs till the floor of his own palace was ankle-deep in blood, as the chronicler asserts of Pedro.

It is unjust to deny the monarch the one distinction he earned by consistency and perseverance in the cause of evil. “Cruel” was his epithet in his own day; let “cruel” be his epitaph in ours.a

FOOTNOTES