HENRY VI, King of England

HENRY VI, King of England, son of King Henry V and Catherine of Valois, was born atWindsor on the 6th of December 1421. He became King of England on the 1st of September 1422, and a few weeks later, on the death of his grandfather Charles VI, was proclaimed king of France also. Henry V had directed that Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, should be his son's preceptor; Warwick took up his charge in 1428; he trained his pupil to be a good man and refined gentleman, but he could not teach him kingship. As early as 1423 the baby king was made to appear at public functions and take his place in parliament. He was knighted by his uncle Bedford at Leicester in May 1426, and on the 6th of November 1429 was crowned at Westminster.

Early in the next year he was taken over to France, and after long delay crowned in Paris on the 26th of December 1431. His return to London on the 14th of February 1432 was celebrated with a great pageant devised by Lydgate. During these early years Bedford ruled France wisely and at first with success, but he could not prevent the mischief which Humphrey of Gloucester caused both at home and abroad. Even in France the English lost ground steadily after the victory of Joan of Arc before Orleans in 1429. The climax came with the death of Bedford, and defection of Philip of Burgundy in 1435. This closed the first phase of Henry's reign.

There followed fifteen years of vain struggle in France, and growing disorder at home [cf.Hundred Years' War]. The determining factor in politics was the conduct of the war. Cardinal Beaufort, and after him Suffolk, sought by working for peace to secure at least Guienne and Normandy. Gloucester courted popularity by opposing them throughout; with him was Richard of York, who stood next in succession to the crown. Beaufort controlled the council, and it was under his guidance that the king began to take part in the government. Thus it was natural that as Henry grew to manhood he seconded heartily the peace policy. That policy was wise, but national pride made it unpopular and difficult. Henry himself had not the strength or knowledge to direct it, and was unfortunate in his advisers. The cardinal was old, his nephews John and Edmund Beaufort were incompetent, Suffolk, though a man of noble character, was tactless. Suffolk, however, achieved a great success by negotiating the marriage of Henry to Margaret of Anjouin 1445. Humphrey of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufortboth died early in 1447. Suffolk was now all-powerful in the favour of the king and queen [Margaret of Anjou]. But his home administration was unpopular, whilst the incapacity of Edmund Beaufort ended in the loss of all Normandy and Guienne.

Suffolk's fall in 1450 left Richard of York the foremost man in England. Henry's reign then entered on its last phase of dynastic struggle. Cade's rebellion suggested first that popular discontent might result in a change of rulers. But York, as heir to the throne, could abide his time. The situation was altered by the mental derangement of the king, and the birth of his son in 1453. York after a struggle secured the protectorship, and for the next year ruled England. Then Henry was restored to sanity, and the queen and Edmund Beaufort, now Duke of Somerset, to power. Open war followed, with the defeat and death of Somerset at St Albans on the 22nd of May 1455. Nevertheless a hollow peace was patched up, which continued during four years with lack of all governance. In 1459 war broke out again. On the 10th of July 1460, Henry was taken prisoner at Northampton, and forced to acknowledge York as heir, to the exclusion of his own son.

Richard of York's death at Wakefield (Dec. 31, 1460), and the queen's victory at St Albans (Feb. 17, 1461), brought Henry his freedom and no more. Edward of York had himself proclaimed king, and by his decisive victory at Towton on the 29th of March, put an end to Henry's reign. For over three years Henry was a fugitive in Scotland. He returned to take part in an abortive rising in 1464. A year later he was captured in the north, and brought a prisoner to the Tower. For six months in 1470-1471 he emerged to hold a shadowy kingship as Warwick's puppet. Edward's final victory at Tewkesbury was followed by Henry's death on the 21st of May 1471, certainly by violence, perhaps at the hands of Richard of Gloucester (later King Richard III).

Henry was the most hapless of monarchs. He was so honest and well-meaning that he might have made a good ruler in quiet times. But he was crushed by the burden of his inheritance. He had not the genius to find a way out of the French entanglement or the skill to steer a constitutional monarchy between rival factions. So the system and policy, which were the creations of Henry IV and Henry V, led under Henry VI to the ruin of their dynasty. Henry's very virtues added to his difficulties. He was so trusting that any one could influence him, so faithful that he would not give up a minister who had become impossible. Thus even in the middle period he had no real control of the government. In his latter years he was mentally too weak for independent action. At his best he was a " good and gentle creature," but too kindly and generous to rule others. Religious observances and study were his chief occupations. His piety was genuine; simple and pure, he was shocked at any suggestion of impropriety, but his rebuke was only "Fie, for shame! forsooth ye are to blame."

For education he was really zealous. Even as a boy he was concerned for the upbringing of his half-brothers, his mother's children by Owen Tudor [cf. Edmund and Jasper Tudor]. Later, the planning of his great foundations at Eton and King's College, Cambridge, was the one thing which absorbed his interest. To both he was more than a royal founder, and the credit of the whole scheme belongs to him. The charter for Eton was granted on the 11th of October 1440, and that for King's College in the following February. Henry himself laid the foundation-stones of both buildings. He frequently visited Cambridge to superintend the progress of the work. When at Windsor he loved to send for the boys from his school and give them good advice.

Henry's only son was Edward, Prince of Wales (1453-1471), who, having shared the many journeys and varying fortunes of his mother, Margaret, was killed after the battle of Tewkesbury(May 4, 1471) by some noblemen in attendance on Edward IV.

(C. L. Kingsford)

---

      Excerpted from:

      Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Ed. Vol XIII.
      Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. 286.

The War of the Roses

House of Lancaster

House of York

WARS OF THE ROSES,¹ a name given to a series of civil wars in England during the reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. They were marked by a ferocity and brutality which are practically unknown in the history of English wars before and since.

The honest yeoman of Edward III's time had evolved into a professional soldier of fortune, and had been demoralized by the prolonged and dismal Hundred Years' War, at the close of which many thousands of ruffians, whose occupation had gone, had been let loose in England. At the same time the power of feudalism had become concentrated in the hands of a few great lords, who were wealthy enough and powerful enough to become king-makers. The disbanded mercenaries enlisted indifferently on either side, corrupting the ordinary feudal tenantry with the evil habits of the French wars, and pillaged the countryside, with accompaniments of murder and violence, wherever they went.

It is true that the sympathies of the people at large were to some extent enlisted: London and, generally, the trading towns being Yorkist, the country people, Lancastrian — a division of factions which roughly corresponded to that of the early part of the Great Rebellion, two centuries later, and similarly in a measure indicative of the opposition of hereditary loyalty and desire for sound and effective government. But there was this difference, that in the 15th century the feeling of loyalty was to a great extent focused upon the great lords. Each lord could depend on his own tenantry, and he could, further, pay large bands of retainers. Hence, much as the citizen desired a settlement, the issue was in the hands of the magnates; and as accessions to and defections from one party and the other constantly shifted the balance of power, the war dragged on, becoming more and more brutal with every campaign.

The first campaign, or rather episode, of these wars began with an armed demand of the Yorkist lords for the dismissal of the Lancastrian element in the King's Council, Henry VI himself being incapable of governing. The Lancastrians, and the king with them, marched out of London to meet them, and the two small armies (3000 Yorkists, 2000 Lancastrians) met at St Albans (May 22, 1455). The encounter ended with the dispersion of the weaker force, and the king fell into the hands of the Yorkists. Four years passed before the next important battle,Blore Heath, was fought (Sept. 23, 1459). In this theEarl of Salisbury trapped a Lancastrian army in unfavourable ground near Market Drayton, and destroyed it; but new political combinations rendered the Yorkist victory useless and sent the leaders of the party into exile.

They made a fresh attempt in 1460, and, thanks partly to treason in the Lancastrian camp, partly to the generalship of Warwick, won an important success and for the second time seized the King [Henry VI] at Northampton (July 10, 1460). Shortly afterwards, after a period of negotiation and threats, there was a fresh conflict. Richard Duke of York went north to fight the hostile army which gathered at York and consisted of Lancashire and Midland Royalists, while his son Edward, Earl of March [later Edward IV], went into the west. The father was ambushed and killed at Wakefield (Dec. 30, 1460), and the Lancastrians, inspired as always by Queen Margaret of Anjou, moved south on London, defeated Warwick at St Albans (Feb. 17, 1461), and regained possession of the King's person.

But the young Earl of March, now Duke of York [later Edward IV], having raised an army in the west, defeated the Earl of Pembroke (Feb. 2, 1461) at Mortimer's Cross (5 mi. W. of Leominster). This was the first battle of the war which was characterized by the massacre of the common folk and beheading of the captive gentlemen — invariable accompaniments of Edward's victories, and conspicuously absent in Warwick's. Edward then pressed on, joined Warwick, and entered London, the army of Margaret retreating before them. The excesses of the northern Lancastrians in their advance produced bitter fruit on the retreat, for men flocked to Edward's standard.

Marching north in pursuit, the Yorkists brought their enemy to bay at Towton, 3 mi. S. of Tadcaster, and utterly destroyed them (March 29, 1461). For three years after Towton the war consisted merely of desultory local struggles of small bodies of Lancastrians against the inevitable. The Duke of York had become King Edward IV, and had established himself firmly. But in 1464, in the far north of England, the Red Rose [House of Lancaster] was again in the field. Edward acted with his usual decision. His lieutenant Montagu (Warwick's brother) defeated and slew Sir Ralph Percy at Hedgeley Moor, near Wooler (April 25, 1464), and immediately afterwards destroyed another Lancastrian army, with which were both Henry VI and Queen Margaret, at Hexham (May 8, 1464). The massacres and executions which followed effectively crushed the revolt.

For some years thereafter Edward reigned peacefully, but Warwick the king-maker and all the Neville following having turned against him (1470), he was driven into exile. But at a favourable moment he sailed from Flushing with 1500 retainers and Burgundian mercenaries, and eluding the Lancastrian fleet and the coast defence troops, landed at Ravenspur (Spurn Head) in Yorkshire in March 1471. His force was hardly more than a bodyguard; the gates of the towns were shut against him, and the country people fled. But by his personal charm, diplomacy, fair promises and an oath of allegiance to King Henry VI, sworn solemnly at York, he disarmed hostility and, eluding Montagu's army, reached his own estates in the Wakefield district, where many of his old retainers joined him.

As he advanced south, a few Yorkist nobles with their following rallied to him, but it was far more the disunion of the Warwick and the real Lancastrian parties than his own strength which enabled him to meet Warwick's forces in a pitched battle. At Barnet, on Easter Eve, April 14, 1471, the decisive engagement was fought. But in the midst of the battle reinforcements coming up under the Earl of Oxford to join Warwick came into conflict with their own party, the badge of the Vere star being mistaken for Edward's Rose-en-soleil. From that point all the mutually distrustful elements of Warwick's army fell apart, and Warwick himself, with his brother Montagu, was slain.

For the last time the unhappy Henry VI fell into the hands of his enemies. He was relegated to the Tower, and Edward, disbanding his army, reoccupied the throne. But Margaret of Anjou, his untiring opponent, who had been in France while her cause and Warwick's was being lost, had landed in the west shortly after Barnet, and Edward had to take the field at once. Assembling a fresh army at Windsor, whence he could march to interpose between Margaret and her north Welsh allies, or directly bar her road to London, he marched into the west on the 24th of April. On the 29th he was at Cirencester, Margaret, engaged chiefly in recruiting an army, near Bath. Edward hurried on, but Margaret eluded him and marched for Gloucester. At that place the governor refused the Lancastrians admittance, and seeking to cross the Severn out of reach of the Yorkists, they pushed on by forced marches to Tewkesbury. But Edward too knew how to march, and caught them up. The battle of Tewkesbury (May 4, 1471) ended with the destruction of Margaret's force, the captivity of Margaret, the death of her son Edward (who, it is sometimes said, was stabbed by Edward IV himself after the battle) and the execution of sixteen of the principal Lancastrians.

This was Edward's last battle. The rest of his eventful reign was similar in many ways to that of his contemporary Louis XI, being devoted to the consolidation of his power, by fair means and foul, at the expense of the great feudatories. But the Wars of the Roses were not yet at an end. For fourteen years, except for local outbreaks, the land had peace, and then Richard III's crown, struck from his head on Bosworth Field (Aug. 22, 1485), was presented to Henry Earl of Richmond, who, as Henry VII, established the kingship on a secure foundation. A last feeble attempt to renew the war, made by an army gathered to uphold the pretender Lambert Simnel, was crushed by Henry VII at Stoke Field (4 mi S.W. of Newark) on the 16th of June 1487.



1 The name, as is well known, comes from the "white rose of York" and the "red rose of Lancaster"; but these badges, though more or less recognized as party distinctions, by no means superseded the private devices of the various great lords, such as the "falcon and fetterlock" of Richard Duke of York, the "rose in sun" of Edward IV, the "crowned swan" of Margaret, the Vere star, and even the revived "white hart" of Richard II.

---

      Text source:

      Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Ed. Vol XXIII.
      Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. 736-.

---

May 22, 1455 First Battle of St Albans  Sep 23, 1459 Battle of Blore Heath  Oct 12, 1459 Rout at Ludford Bridge  Jul 10, 1460 Battle of Northampton  Dec 30, 1460 Battle of Wakefield  Feb  2, 1461 Battle of Mortimer's Cross  Feb 22, 1461 Second Battle of St Albans  Mar 28, 1461 Skirmish at Ferrybridge  Mar 29, 1461 Battle of Towton  Apr 25, 1464 Battle of Hedgeley Moor  May 15, 1464 Battle of Hexham  Jul 26, 1469 Battle of Edgecote  Mar 12, 1470 Battle of Loosecoat Field  Apr 14, 1471 Battle of Barnet  May  4, 1471 Battle of Tewkesbury  Aug 22, 1485 Battle of Bosworth  Jun 16, 1487 Battle of Stoke Field

---

      Map source:

      Colbeck, Charles. The Public Schools Historical Atlas.
      New York: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1905. 

Napoleon’s Dogs: Literary License or Dread History?

January 9th, 2008

Since adopting our first standard poodle a little over 20 years ago – and being Poodle People ever since – we’ve heard a lot of stories about poodles, poodle history and poodle talents from a lot of different people. One of my favorites has to do with how poodles came to be the National Dog of France. No, it wasn’t because poodles are so fashionable or even that they’re so fancy. And it wasn’t because poodles are such fine waterretrievers and hunting dogs who aren’t the least bit gun shy.

As I recall the story (no, I don’t recall who told it to me), it has to do with Napoleon Bonaparte and his strong martial proclivities. Dogs had long been mascots and soldiers in war, from the time of the Vikings and the early Teutonic wars, primarily wolfhounds and other largebreeds. When guns and artillery became standard noisemakers on the battlefields, dogs who would not be shy of the booms or the fire were kept. Among these were the poodle, and Napoleon liked his poodles big.

Known for fierce loyalty, fearlessness and intelligence, the war poodles were known to take part in battles on behalf of their regiments even without specific training for the task. In his memoirs Napoleon praised a poodle who died at the battle of Marengo, licking the face of his fallen Grenadier master. Another poodle named Buff accompanied Lt. Col.Chestmaster during the Peninsula War, while the poodle Moffino got sadly separated from his master while crossing the Berezina River in the Russian campaign. Moffino then traveled from Russia to Italy to find his corporal master, and they were gladly reunited.

One of Napoleon’s enemies, the Duc d’Enghein, took his poodle Mohiloff – a gift from the king of Sweden – with him to prison at the fortress of Vincennes. The dog stayed with his master even as he was shot at dawn and had to be forcibly removed from his grave. The commander of Vincennes adopted Mohiloff, and had him stuffed after he died. A poodle named Moustache became the mascot of a regiment of grenadiers whose standard the dog rescued from the battlefield at Austerlitz. He is also credited with detectiing an Austrian spy and saving a detachment of his company from a surprise attack.

There are many more stories of poodles as war dogs in the Napoleonic campaigns, but the way it was told to me, they actually served in the infantry! Napoleon was a brilliant artillery tactician, and had poodles of his own. While one can make funny, poofy hairdos with poodle hair – which never stops growing – they are finely built dogs of some stature and sport mouths full of sharp teeth they aren’t afraid to use in defense of their masters. The penchant for poodles to be kept and tended by entire regiments meant that their loyalties extended to all members who were kind to them. It is this quality Napoleon put to such good use.

I was told that in some battles he would have his men brush out their poodle’s hair – which had been grown quite long – so that it poofed widely from their bodies and made them look at least twice as big as they really were. Then, on signal as the front lines faced each other across the field, the poodles would leap forward and sprint on their long legs toward the enemy’s line. Teeth bared, eyes blazing, aiming for throats.

Those were the days of muzzle-loaders, long guns that had to be deployed in waves because it took so long to re-load after letting fly a shot. The enemy’s infantry would send a volley toward the attacking monster-dogs, but because their hair belied their true size, those lead balls most often missed their mark and sailed right through the pompadours without leaving a scratch. The dogs were fast and bent on action, the line had no time to reload before they’d be at those infantrymens’ throats.

Meanwhile, while the enemy was busy wasting its shot-volley and panicking as the warrior dogs took them down, Napoleon’s infantry was marching steadily forward. As the dogs burst past the front lines toward the rear, France’s artillery would fire and ravage the enemy’s formations.

This may be mostly legend, or it may be true. Detailed accounts of these poodle regiments were not kept in the Napoleonic wars, even though there are many accounts of the personal companion poodles and battle dogs kept by individual regiments and officers. Poodles did go on to earn their rightful place as France’s National Dog breed, and poodles are still used today in France as police dogs, bomb and drug-sniffing dogs, and as guardian dogs in a number of applications.

It was probably not an accident that Orwell cast Napoleon’s Dogs as enforcers in his novelAnimal Farm, for which inspiration he may have drawn upon the fearful legends among the Russian peasantry of Napoleon’s real war dogs in the last fateful Russian campaign.

So don’t be fooled by hype that says poodles can only be prissy companions or trainable guide/service dogs, but look too silly to be effective police or war dogs. Depends on the hairdo, I say, and from the above legend it looks like the frizzier and bigger the hairdo, the better!

http://www.poodlebreedguide.com/napoleons-dogs-literary-license-or-dread-history/

Napoleon's Dog 2

A book called Pauline Borghese by Antonio Spinosa published in French by Tallandier in 1986 says Napoleon's dog on Elba was called Lauro.

"When Napoleon was on St. Helena he had a black and white dog called 'Sambo' - it had its ears cut off, in the Chinese style, and looked more like a seal. After Napoleon's death in May 1821 the dog was taken back to Europe by Countess Bertrand and her children."

http://www.napoleonguide.com/napdog3.htm

New Old Cover! Book Approved!

Yay!  The Audiobook should be out in about 3 weeks!

Napoleon's Dog

Napoleon's Dog -  stuffed and displayed in the Musee de l'Armee - 
kept him company during his last exile.

http://web.mit.edu/lxs/www/photos/parents/march/napoleon-dog.html

QUADRILLE and Médiateur, 18th century

Courtly ladies' game of 18th-century France

It will not be unnecessary to acquaint the Reader, that the following game of Quadrille has been about two years, and is at present, the favourite game at the French court... [It] is more amusing and entertaining than... any other Game on the Cards...

Anon, The Game of Quadrille (1726)

C'est au bon goût de la nation française, & principalement du beau sexe, qu'il faut rapporter la vogue générale où est ce jeu, ainsi que la prédilection qu'il a sur tous les autres.

Les Règles du Médiateur (Paris, 1752)

This four-handed adaptation of the classic three-player game of Hombre (or Ombre, in English) was developed in France in the early 18th century. It spread rapidly and widely to become, by any standard of judgment, one of the great European games for about a hundred years. In England, however, it was soon rivalled by the newly refined game of partnership Whist, with which it eventually had to contend for popularity throughout the western world. Its chief problem in this unequal combat was that of extreme complexity, what with its prehistoric system of upside-down ranking in two suits, its haphazard range of non-standard bids, and a hard-score pay-off system of such complexity as led "Quanti" to complain:

I have known it happen, that a party, being desirous to play at Quadrille, has been obliged to forego the pleasure of the entertainment, for want of some one to regulate the various payments.

As if in self-defence, in the latter half of the century the principles of Quadrille merged with those of Whist itself to produce the hybrid game of Boston Whist, the parent of Solo Whist that would reach England in the 1880s. Quadrille may therefore be regarded as the chief progenitor of Solo Whist, just as partnership Whist was that of Contract Bridge. All are four-player plain-trick games, the difference between the two branches being that whereas Whist and Bridge are played in fixed partnerships, Quadrille and Solo are contested on an individual basis, albeit interspersed with temporary, ad-hoc alliances. 
    Which branch you prefer depends on your temperament. Mine favours solo games, unlike that of Charles Lamb's alter ego, Sarah Battle:

She despised [its] chance-started, capricious, and ever fluctuating alliances. The skirmishes of quadrille, she would say, reminded her of the petty ephemeral embroilments of the little Italian states, depicted by Machiavel; perpetually changing postures and connexions; bitter foes today, sugared darlings to-morrow; kissing and scratching in a breath;- but the wars of whist were comparable to the long, steady, deep-rooted, rational, antipathies of the great French and English nations.

Charles Lamb, "Mrs Battle's Opinions on Whist", in The Essays of Elia (1823)

A notable characteristic of Quadrille is that it was always more popular with women than with men, who evidently preferred the more silent and Spartan rigours of Whist. Here's the author of Les Règles du Médiateur (a development of Quadrille, also described below), writing in 1752:

It is to the good taste of the French nation, and principally to that of the fair sex, that one must ascribe the widespread vogue for this game and the preference accorded to it over all the others.

The pseudonymous author of A Brief & Necessary Supplement to all former Treatises on Quadrille, by No Adept" (London, 1764) addresses his introduction -

To the Ladies: After reading this little book, you will understand what Mr Hoyle says, as well as any Man in England. The Men, some few excepted, like you Ladies, and myself, take it for granted that his calculations are true...

It comes as no surprise to learn that the Quadrille is favoured by the nauseous Lady Catherine de Bourgh in Pride and Prejudice (1813), but by then it must have been well on the wane. In the 1847 edition of Hoyle's Games, editor G.- H.- pens the following introduction:

Gaming, like every thing else in this sublunary world, is subject to the caprices and vicissitudes of fashion. Thus Quadrille, which for upwards of a century held the first rank in all the gambling circles of Europe, is now completely banished from them; and is rarely or ever seen beyond the precincts of some antiquated provincial circles, where it continues still to faire les douces of many a dowager.

and Thomas Love Peacock, in Gryll Grange (1860), puts these words into the mouth of the Reverend Doctor Opimian:

The old time for cards was the interval between tea and supper. Now there is no such interval, except here and there in out-of-the-way places, where, perhaps, quadrille and supper may still flourish as in the days of Queen Anne. Nothing was more common in country towns and villages, half a century ago, than parties meeting in succession at each other's houses, for tea, supper, and quadrille.

From a character in Thackeray's The Virginians (1858) we learn that:

Card playing is greatly out of mode: very likely there are not six ladies of fashion in London who know the difference between Spadille and Manille.

It is on these grounds that in the following description I take it for granted that Hombre, the term designating the solo player, is female, even though it is the Spanish for "man".

There has never existed a universally acknowledged standard form of Quadrille. It developed along different lines in different countries over a long period of time, thus further complicating its already inherent complexities. Furthermore, such would-be Hoyles as sought to describe it in the 18th century had not yet developed the art of accurate and comprehensive description, and unconsciously took it for granted that you would understand their explanations because you already knew how to play the game. Those of the 19th century were often better writers and teachers, but by then no longer knew the game at first hand and had (as I have) obvious difficulty in making sense of what their predecessors had passed on to them. My primary source is an admirable 96-page booklet entitled Quadrille Elucidated, by a pseudonymous "Q. Quanti", largely because I possess a copy but equally because the author was obviously not only a thoroughly experienced player but also a thoughtful analyst and a wonderful writer (if you like 19th-century English).     Quanti clearly belongs to the superior tradition of card-game explication represented by Francis Willughby in the 17th century and Henry "Cavendish" Jones in the 19th, and from his style I suspect him to have been a lawyer (as indeed was Edmond Hoyle).     The Treatise is physically impossible to scan or photocopy without damage, and in any case is too long to reproduce here; but there is a copy in the Frederic Jessel Collection of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, if you wish to examine it yourself - in which case please send me any corrections you may wish to recommend.     The titles noted above, also in Jessel, are also commendable, if to a lesser degree. I have, of course, examined Hoyle himself and many of his later editors and plagiarists, none of whom contributes anything useful, even where they are intelligible, and most of whom kick the same bits of text about like a worn-out football. (Though G. - H. - , in his 1847 Hoyle, offers the interesting remark that a later form of Quadrille "is very much in vogue" in Lancashire.)

Up	QUADRILLE Description by David Parlett based on "Q. Quanti" (1822)	Down
	Players. Four. Each plays for herself in the long run, but temporary alliances may be formed from deal to deal. The turn to deal, the dealing itself, and all the play of tricks, rotate from left to right. Dealer's right-hand neighbour is the "eldest" hand and dealer "youngest". Cards. 40, consisting of AKQJ765432 in each suit. (Omit ranks 10, 9, 8.) Hard score. Each player starts with a number of chips or counters of her own distinctive colour. Surprisingly, Quanti omits to say how many, probably because regular players could purchase proprietary boxes of Quadrille counters in various denominations, so they knew there would be enough of each sort without having to know exactly how many were "enough". The 1752 French book mentioned above specifies each player's full complement as consisting of 10 jettons (counters, small and round), 19 fiches(fish, so called from their shape), and 5 mils or contrats (large and oblong). As each denomination is 10 times higher than the one below, this brought the total to the equivalent of 700 unitary counters. (Per person! No wonder they needed a basket to hold them all in, as illustrated here.) Structure. A game is forty deals, or any other multiple of four as agreed in advance. Deal. Before each deal, each player stakes one chip to the pool. (Or the dealer stakes four, if preferred.) Deal 10 cards each, face down, in batches of 4-3-3, 3-4-3, or 3-3-4. Rank of cards. The ranking order of cards varies as between red and black suits, and as between trumps and plain suits. The top three trumps are called Matadors and always consist of: 1.  Ace, called Spadille 2. The nominally lowest trump (black 2, red 7), called Manille 3.  Ace, called Basto. In a red trump suit the fourth highest is its Ace, called Punto, but it is not a matador. Matadors have special privileges in the play of tricks, as will be explained later. The trick-taking power of cards,from highest to lowest in each suit, is as follows: in black trumps: spadille, manille (2), basto, K Q J 7 6 5 4 3 in non-trump black suits: K Q J 7 6 5 4 3 2 in red trumps: spadille, manille (7), basto, punto (A), K Q J 2 3 4 5 6 in non-trump red suits:  K Q J 2 3 4 5 6 7 Auction. Whoever bids highest becomes the soloist, and is designated Hombre. Each in turn, beginning with Eldest hand, may bid or pass. Passing prohibits you from bidding again. The simplest form of the game has only three bids, from lowest to highest: 1. Alliance (announced as "Beg" or "Propose" or "Ask leave"). A bid to win at least six tricks after naming trumps and calling as an ally the holder of a specific King. 2. Solo (or sans prendre). A bid to win at least six tricks after naming trumps and playing alone against the other three. 3. The vole (or slam). As solo, but also undertaking to win all 10 tricks. A solo overcalls an alliance, but an elder player (one closer to the dealer's right) who bids an alliance may, if overcalled, raise her bid to a solo and so become Hombre by virtue of positional priority.     It is worth noting that, if you play a solo, you can raise your bid to a vole after winning the first six tricks. Therefore, you needn't bid it in advance unless (a) you need to overcall an earlier player's bid of solo, or (b) your vole is absolutely unbeatable, in which case it is worth bidding now because it earns more than if undertaken later. If anyone does bid the vole, every player, including the bidder, must immediately pay three chips into a new pool, consisting of 12 in all, which is to be kept separate from the main stake or pool.     If playing solo, Hombre announces the trump suit and play begins.     If playing alliance, she names trumps and nominates the King of any non-trump suit lacking from her own hand. If (and only if) she holds all three Kings (Note 1) she calls a Queen instead. The holder of the called card automatically becomes the other partner, but says nothing. The partnership may only be revealed when the called card is played to a trick, or when its holder makes some other play that obviously favours the caller. Hombre may call a King she holds herself, whether by mistake or as a bluff. In this case she will, in effect, be playing a solo (secretly), and wins or loses accordingly.     If everyone passes, the game is Forced Spadille. Whoever holds A must play an alliance by calling a King, or a Queen if she holds four Kings. In this case, however, she may (but need not) invite her partner to nominate trumps (Note 2). Play. Eldest leads first. Players must follow suit if possible (except when reneging - see below), otherwise may play any card. The trick is taken by the highest card of the suit led, or by the highest trump if any are played, and the winner of each trick leads to the next. Reneging. A player holding a matador need not play it to a trump lead, but may, if lacking lower trumps, instead renege by playing from another suit. However, the lead of a higher matador forces the play of a lower one if its holder has no alternative. For example, if Spadille is led, the holder of Manille or Basto must play it if she has no other trump. Similarly, Manille forces the play of Basto if there is no alternative. Spadille itself, being the highest cannot be forced. Note that forcing applies only if the higher matador is led to the trick, not if played second or third. Premiers and the vole. If Hombre in a Solo bid wins the first six tricks straight off, she gains a bonus for "premiers", and may claim her winnings without further play. If, however, she leads to the seventh trick, this automatically raises her bid to the vole. In this event, everyone including Hombre must immediately pay three chips into a new pool, consisting of 12 in all, which is to be kept separate from the main stake or pool. If she then subsequently loses a trick this stake will go to the opponents, but she will still be paid for winning the game and the premiers.     In an alliance, the same rule applies to the partnership if they take the first six between them. Obviously, they must agree whether or not to do so, but they are not allowed to give each other any information as to their cards or likelihood of success. Whoever is on lead should merely say "May I?", and her ally reply merely "Yes" or "No". If after six tricks Hombre does not yet know who her ally is, the latter will naturally reveal herself by either asking or answering that question.     In a Forced Spadille, the vole may not be specifically undertaken and there is no extra payment for winning it. (This presumably also precludes payment for premiers, but none of my sources addresses this point.) Pay-off for won solo. Hombre sweeps the pool, plus that for the vole if she won every trick, and receives from each opponent whichever of the following additional payments may apply. (A unit means one quarter of the stake. The stake may be greater than four chips, as it is carried forward when a game is lost.) For the solo : 4 units Matadors (3 in Hombre's hand) : 1 unit Double matadors (3 plus Punto) : 2 units Premiers (first 6 tricks) : 1 unit Vole (all 10 tricks) : 2 units (Note: "Matadors" are paid when Hombre originally held Spadille, Manille, and Basto. Double matadors, for the additional holding of Punto, is of course possible only when a red suit was trump.) Pay-off for won alliance or forced Spadille. The stake is divided equally between the allies, who also receive from the opponents, one to one, any of the relevant bonuses listed above. In this case payment for matadors may be for three or four held between the allies, not necessarily in one hand. Penalties for a lost game. In a solo, Hombre pays each of the three opponents. In an alliance or Forced Spadille, Hombre pays the appropriate amount to one opponent, and her ally to the other. But there is an exception that applies to an Alliance (though not to a Forced Spadille), namely, that Hombre is obliged to win at least three tricks, and if she fails to do so must alone pay the two opponents on behalf of herself and her ally. This is because the latter was an involuntary partner and could not reasonably have been expected to contribute more than two (Note 3).     There are two degrees of loss. If Hombre wins only five tricks, it is a remise; if four or fewer, it is a codille.     For loss by remise, Hombre doubles the stake - which is carried forward to the next deal - and pays to each opponent the premium for a solo (if applicable) and for any matadors she may have held (either alone or with an ally.)     For loss by codille, Hombre's two or three opponents themselves sweep the pool and divide it between them - unless there are three opponents and the stake is not exactly divisible by three, when it is left in place and carried forward. Hombre then contributes to the pool for the next deal twice the amount that was just taken, and pays to each opponent the amount she would otherwise have received from them (if applicable) for the premium, matadors and the vole undertaken. Penalties for a lost vole. A vole undertaken after six tricks, if lost, does not bar Hombre from winning the game stake, the payment for premiers, and any payment for matadors. The stake for the vole itself is taken in equal proportions by her opponents.     For a lost vole announced (i.e. bid in the auction, as opposed to undertaken after winning premiers), Hombre neither wins the game stake nor doubles it, but leaves it to be carried forward to the next deal. Nor does she pay her opponents anything more than the premium of the vole - provided, however, that she won at least six tricks. If she fails even to take six tricks, however, she does pay a remise to the pool (i.e. doubles it) as well as whatever other payments are due for a lost solo. The stake for the vole itself is taken in equal proportions by her opponents.

Up	By 1750 the French were playing a more elaborate variant entitled MÉDIATEUR Description by David Parlett based on Quanti (1822) and Les Règles du Médiateur (1752)	Down
	The key feature of Médiateur is the eponymous new bid, which ranks, logically enough, between an alliance and a solo. By bidding this, Hombre undertakes to win six tricks after calling for any King, which its holder must pass her, face up, in exchange for any unwanted card (passed face down) from Hombre's hand. She then plays alone against three opponents. The logic of this bid is that it is called when you have five safe tricks in your hand, as opposed to the four you need for an alliance or the six for a solo.     Médiateur is also played with a suit of preference, or favourite suit - often hearts, though it may be decided otherwise, or at random at start of play or even at each deal. Any bid made "in favourite" overcalls the same bid made in any other suit, and all relevant bonuses for it are doubled (though the stake itself remains single).     Further bids were also added to what the French always regarded as a completely new game, though the English continued to call it Quadrille. The full range of bids, from lowest to highest, is as follows (more or less - there was always a great deal of local variation). 1. Forced Spadille. As before, but in favourite all payments are doubled and there is a premium of 1 unit. 2. Alliance. As before, but (again) in favourite all payments are doubled and there is a premium of 1 unit. 3. Médiateur. Hombre plays after calling for a King (or Queen if four held) and taking it into her own hand in exchange for any unwanted card. Pay-offs are the same as for a solo, except that (a) the premium is half that of a solo (1 unit, or 2 in favourite), and (b) the player who surrendered her King is exempt from paying Hombre that premium, though not from paying for matadors, premiers or the vole. 4. Casco (or Gasco, or Respect). This may be bid only by a player who holds both black Aces, and is (therefore) presumably uncertain about which suit to entrump. If no one overcalls it, she places both black Aces face up on the table and calls for a specific King lacking from her own hand. Whoever holds that King declares herself and nominates a trump suit, and the two then play as allies. If they win premiers, they may play for the vole. The pay-off includes a premium equivalent to that of a solo, namely 2 units, or 4 in favourite. If unsuccessful, both are equally liable. 5. Solo. As before, except that the premium is only 2 units unless played in favourite, when it remains 4. 6. Grandissimo. A solo with no trump suit, apart from the two black Aces, which form a two-card fifth suit of trumps. It is helpful, but not obligatory, to hold both Aces to bid this. You may go for the vole after winning premiers. Its value is twice that of a heart solo, namely 8 units. 7. Devole (Nemo, Misère). An undertaking to lose every trick, playing at no trump, except for the two black Aces (as at grandissimo). Its value is twice that of a grandissimo, namely 16 units. 8. Vole announced or revealed. The non-partnership bids of médiateur, solo, and grandissimo may also be made with the vole announced, in which case they overcall the same bid without it but can be overcalled by a higher mode of play. If not overcalled, an extra stake or pool must be immediately set up for the vole, to which each player contributes an equal share, consisting of three times the value of the basic game - that is, 3 from each for médiateur, or 6 in favourite; 6 from each for solo, or 12 in favourite; and 24 each for grandissimo.     The vole may not only be announced, but also revealed - that is, Hombre undertakes to play with her hand of cards exposed on the table. In this case the pool to be set up for it is double that of its unrevealed equivalent.     I should have expected any vole announced to overcall any bid without it, so that it is always the highest possible call; but Quanti, who is unusually reticent on this point, seems to suggest otherwise. In an attempt to clarify the whole system of payments that he is advocating, Quanti offers the following table, in which each quoted figure represents one quarter of the relevant stake, f = in favourite, and n = not in favourite. Matadors n f Voles undertaken n f 3 matadors 1 2 Alliance, Médiateur 3 6 4 matadors 2 4 Casco, Solo 6 12 Premiers 1 2 Grandissimo 24 - Games Voles announced Forced spadille 0 1 Médiateur *5 *10 Alliance 0 1 Solo 9 18 Médiateur 1 2 Grandissimo 36 - Casco 2 4 Voles revealed Solo 2 4 Médiateur 6 12 Grandissimo 8 - Solo 12 24 Devole (Nemo) 16 - Grandissimo 48 - * Theoretically 4½ and 9, respectively
	Notes
	1. The sources usually say "four Kings", but this conflicts with the rule that you may not call the King of trumps. Perhaps you may in fact call the trump King if it is the only one you haven't got. (Return 1) 2. Sources do not remark on the conflict of this rule with that forbidding partner's self-declaration. But it makes for an elegant dilemma that the caller should either name trumps, or know her partner immediately, but not both. (Return 2) 3. Quanti argues at length against this rule and reasoning, and proposes an alternative based on whether or not the ally held certain combinations of Kings and matadors. (Return 3).