Транскрипция и транслитерация - это способы перевода лексической единицы оригинала путем воссоздания ее формы с помощью букв ПЯ. При транскрипции воспроизводится звуковая форма иноязычного слова, а при транслитерации его графическая форма (буквенный состав). Ведущим способом в современной переводческой практике является транскрипция с сохранением некоторых элементов транслитерации Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). М., 1990. - С.173..

Ср.:

Cobham - Кобэм

Lamphey - Ламфи

Oldhall - Олдхол

Tutbury - Татбери

Wayneflete - Уэйфлит

Waurin - Уорин

Kyriell - Кьюрел

Поскольку фонетические и графические системы языков значительно отличаются друг от друга, передача формы слова ИЯ на языке перевода всегда несколько условна и приблизительна Там же.. Основным преимуществом транслитерации является то, что письменная форма имени подвергается минимальному искажению.

Ср.:

Commines - Комминес

Brecon - Брекон

Carreg Cennen - Каррег Кеннен

Bergavenny - Бергавенни

Однако может исказиться звуковая оболочка, поскольку в любом исходном языке существует своя собственная норма произношения. Поэтому в некоторых случаях отдается предпочтение способу передачи имени собственного с максимальным сохранением оригинального звучания, что становится возможным при транскрибации (транскрипцие).

2.2.2 Лексико-семантические замены

Лексико-семантические замены - это способ перевода лексических единиц оригинала путем использования в переводе единиц ПЯ, значение которых не совпадает со значениями исходных единиц, но может быть выведено из них с помощью определенного типа логических преобразований. Основными видами подобных замен являются конкретизация, генерализация и модуляция (смысловое развитие) значения исходной единицы Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). М.,1990. - С.174..

Конкретизацией называется замена слова или словосочетания ИЯ с более широким предметно-логическим значением словом и словосочетанием ПЯ с более узким значением. В результате применения этой трансформации создаваемое соответствие и исходная лексическая единица оказываются в логических отношениях включения: единица ИЯ выражает родовое понятие, а единица ПЯ - входящее в нее видовое понятие Там же..

Ср.:

The last word on the subject should be that of John Crane, who wrote to John Paston on 25 May: `As for our sovereign lord, thanked be God, he has no great harm'.

Последние слова на тему случившихся событий принадлежали Джону Крэйну, который в письме Джону Пастону, датированному 25 мая, писал: «Что же касается нашего правителя, спасибо Господу, он не получил серьезных ранений».

В данном примере подлежащее “harm” было переведено на русский язык более конкретным подлежащим «ранений». Это можно объяснить тем, что в английском языке преобладают слова с широким значением, что не всегда оказывается приемлемым и понятным в переводе. В большинстве случаев вариант перевода подбирается исходя из контекста Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). М.,1990. - С.175., где ранее было сказано, что король Генри был ранен стрелой в шею, но так как ранение было несерьезным, он стался в живых. Глагол “wrote” переведенный фразой «писал в письме» можно так же считать примером конкретизации.

Ср.:

London was no longer sympathetic towards the House of the Lancaster.

Жители Лондона больше не симпатизировали дому Ланкастеров.

При переводе “London” был применен прием конкретизации, что позволило раскрыть смысловую составляющую слова и преобразовать его в более понятное и привычное для читателя словосочетание «Жители Лондона». Слово “sympathetic” представляющее некоторые трудности при переводе, было преобразовано в словосочетание «не симпатизировали» исходя из контекста, по которому ясно, что в последнее время правление Генриха ухудшилось и жителям Лондона пришлось перейти на сторону Йорка. Словосочетание “the House of the Lancaster” было переведено как «дом Ланкастеров» в соответствие со словарем Великобритания. Лингвострановедческий словарь. URL: http://slovar-vocab.com/english-russian/linguistic-cultural-vocab/house-of-lancaster-1135769.html (дата обращения: 28.04.15)..

Генерализацией называется замена единицы ИЯ, имеющей более узкое значение, единицей ПЯ с более широким значением, т.е. преобразование, обратное конкретизации. Создаваемое соответствие выражает родовое понятие, включающее исходное видовое Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). М.,1990. - С.176..

Ср.:

The Yorkists not only had a strong force of archers but also cannon.

У сторонников Йорка был не только отряд пехоты, но и артиллерии.

В данном примере представлен прием генерализации по стилистическим причинам. “A strong force of archers” и “cannon” переведены более предпочтительными для исторического текста понятиями «отряд пехоты и артиллерии». “The Yorkists” были переведены как «сторонники Йорка» исходя из значения данного слова в Англо-русском словаре Мюллера Англо-русский словарь Мюллера В.К. URL: http://slovar-vocab.com/english-russian/britain-vocab/yorkists-6184645.html  (дата обращения: 14.04.15)..

Ср.:

After Warwick had left for Warwick Castle to prepare for his new duties, York rode north to Sandal Castle.

После того, как Уорик отправился в свой замок готовиться к новой должности, Йорк поехал на север в замок Сандал.

В данном случае при переводе словосочетания “Warwick Castle” использован прием генерализация, чтобы избежать излишних повторов. Данный вид трансформации не искажает смысл предложения, поэтому является более предпочтительным при переводе. Словосочетание «new duties» переведенное как «новая должность» так же является примером генерализации и обусловлена контекстом предыдущего абзаца.

Модуляцией или смысловым развитием называется замена слова или словосочетания ИЯ единицей ПЯ, значение которой логически выводится из значения исходной единицы. При использовании метода модуляции причинно-следственные отношения часто имеют более широкий характер, но логическая связь между двумя наименованиями всегда сохраняется Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). М.,1990. - С.177..

Ср.:

In front of the King the Duke resigned his office and left Parliament before the session was over.

В присутствии короля герцог отказался от своей должности и покинул парламент прежде, чем собрание было окончено.

В данном случае модуляции подверглось начало предложения. “In front of the King” с помощью лексической трансформации было преобразовано в словосочетание «в присутствии короля», что является более конкретным для описываемой ситуации, нежели применение дословного перевода.

Ср.:

York was behind the appointment; for he had long wished to reward Warwick for his crucial support at St Albans.

Йорк был инициатором назначения, так как он давно хотел вознаградить Уорика за его решающую поддержку в битве при Сент-Олбанс.

В данном примере первая часть предложения “York was behind the appointment” была преобразована в словосочетание «Йорк был инициатором назначения». Модуляция здесь раскрывает причинно-следственную связь и выделяет начало предложения. В оригинале предложение разделяется на две самостоятельные части, при этом в переводе они объединяются в цельное сложноподчиненное предложение, что позволяет избежать излишней прерывистости предложения. Имя собственное “Warwick” было переведено с помощью транскрибации как «Уорик», благодаря чему сохранилась звуковая оболочка слова. Перевод “аt St Albans” как «в битве при Сент-Олбанс» является примером конкретизация, которая одновременно является отсылкой к историческому событию. Первая битва при Сент-Олбанс является первым сражением в войне Алой и Белой розы, которое состоялось 22 мая 1455 года в городе Сент-Олбанс Первая битва при Сент-Олбанс. URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/ (дата обращения: 12.04.15)..

ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ

В данной работе на материале главы 13 и 14 из книги Элисон Веир «Ланкастеры и Йорки. Войны Роз» (“Lancaster and York. The Wars of the Roses” by Alison Weir) были рассмотрены лексико-грамматические трансформации текста исторической направленности.

В теоретической части работы представлена информация об историческом тексте и особенностях его перевода, о таких понятиях как «доместикация» и «форенизация». В процессе работы над историческим текстом переводчику приходится выбирать тактику перевода: сделать текст более понятным и доступным читателю, применив тактику доместикации, или сохранить оригинальные черты текста, добавив при этом ссылки на чуждые культуре читателя явления. Обе тактики перевода применимы и востребованы, а выбор остается за переводчиком, как за человеком, старающимся донести реалии и культурные особенности чужой страны своим читателям.

Отдельное внимание было уделено понятию эквивалентности, которой, по словам Л.С. Бархударова, невозможно достичь без применения переводческих трансформаций Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода). М., 1975. - С. 190.. Кроме того было рассмотрено три вида эквивалентности по В.Н. Комиссарову, в каждом из которых сохраняются разные части содержания исходного текста. Изучение уровней эквивалентности позволяет определить, какую степень близости к оригиналу переводчик может достичь в каждом конкретном случае. Понятие эквивалентности раскрывает важнейшую особенность перевода и является одним из центральных понятий современного переводоведения Комиссаров В.Н. Современное переводоведение. М., 2002. - С. 116..

В конце теоретической части было уделено внимание мотивам, по которым переводчик прибегает к использованию трансформаций в своей деятельности. По словам В.Н. Комиссарова специфика перевода, отличающая его от всех других видов языкового посредничества, заключается в том, что он предназначается для полноправной замены оригинала и что рецепторы перевода считают его полностью тождественным исходному тексту. Вместе с тем нетрудно убедиться, что абсолютная тождественность перевода оригиналу недостижима и что это отнюдь не препятствует осуществлению межъязыковой коммуникации. Дело не только в неизбежных потерях, связанных с трудностями передачи особенностей поэтической формы, культурных или исторических ассоциаций, специфических реалий и других тонкостей художественного изложения, но и в несовпадении отдельных элементов смысла в переводах самых элементарных высказываний Комиссаров В.Н. Современное переводоведение. М., 2002. - С. 116.. Также были рассмотрены наиболее известным классификациям переводческих трансформаций. В данной главе классификация В.Н. Комиссарова была выделена как наиболее предпочтительная, и в дальнейшем данная дипломная работа основывалась на исследованиях этого ученого.

В практической части был рассмотрен анализ лексико-грамматических переводческих трансформаций на основе взгляда В.Н. Комиссарова.

На материале исследуемого научно-популярного текста исторической направленности был также проведен статистический анализ по количеству примененных лексико-грамматических трансформаций в переводе. Согласно данному анализу, при переводе данного научно-популярного текста исторической направленности чаще всего приходилось прибегать к грамматическим трансформациям, а точнее к членению и объединению предложений (50%). Дословный перевод встречался очень редко (5%), а грамматические замены, как морфологические (замена формы множественного числа на единственное и наоборот), так и синтаксические (изменения в структуре словосочетаний и членов предложения) являлись неотъемлемой частью перевода (20%). Что касается лексических трансформаций, перевод имен собственных не составил большого труда (5%), а лексико-семантические замены, то есть конкретизация, генерализация, модуляция встречались довольно часто (20%).

При работе с научно-популярным текстом исторической направленности переводчик, как и сам автор такого текста, сталкивается с рядом проблем, решение которых требуют от него более высокой степени компетенции, чем при работе с текстом другой жанрово-стилистической принадлежности. В основе этой проблемы стоит непростая коммуникативная задача научно-популярного текста: с одной стороны он должен быть простым и доступным, а с другой - информативным. Для этого автор прибегает к самым разнообразным языковым средствам, что и составляет основную трудность для перевода подобных текстов. Несмотря на многообразие и разнохарактерность синтаксических средств, которые содержит научно-популярный текст, переводчик путем сравнения и анализа должен найти наиболее оптимальный способ перевода и максимально точно передать коммуникативную задачу исходного текста, а также изначальный замысел автора.

СПИСОК ИСПОЛЬЗОВАННЫХ ИСТОЧНИКОВ

1 О творчестве Элисон Уэйр [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://lady.webnice.ru/blogs/

2 Официальный сайт Элисон Веир [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://alisonweir.org.uk/

3 Паршин А. Теория и практика перевода. - СПб: СГУ, 1999. - 202 с.

4 Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты): Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. - М.: Высш. шк., 1990. - 253 с.

5 Особенности научно-популярного изложения [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://www.prometod.ru/index

6 Козлов Д. Исторический жанр [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://litena.ru/literaturovedenie/item/f00/s00/e0000197/index.shtml

7 Крупник Л.В. Особенности перевода реалий [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://istorya.ru/forum/

8 Сорокин Ю.А. Психолингвистические аспекты изучения текста. - М.: Наука, 1985. - 167 с.

9 Алексеева И.С. Профессиональное обучение переводчика. Учебное пособие по устному и письменному переводу для переводчиков и преподавателей. - СПб.: Институт иностранных языков, 2000. - 192 с.

10 Субъективизм при переводе исторических текстов [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://transeurope.ru/publications/subektivizm-pri-perevode-istoricheskih-tekstov.html

11 Крапивкина О.А., Синёв А.Э. О культурных ценностях в переводе: доместикация vs. Форенизация. - Иркутск: «Иркутский государственный технический университет», 2014. - 5 с.

12 Понятие эквивалентности перевода и ее типы [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://study-english.info/equivalence.php

13 Бархударов Л.С. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода). - М.: «Междунар. отношения», 1975. - 240 с.

14 Миньяр-Белоручев Р.К. Как стать переводчиком? / Ответственный редактор Блох М.Я. - М.: Готика, 1999. - 176 с.

15 Виноградов В.С. Введение в переводоведение (общие и лексические вопросы). - М.: Издательство института общего среднего образования РАО, 2001, - 224 с.

16 Стрелковский Г.М. Теория и практика военного перевода: Немецкий язык. - М.: Воениздат, 1979. - 272 с.

17 Архипов А.Ф. Самоучитель перевода с немецкого языка на русский. - М.: Высш. шк., 1991. - 255 с.

18 Латышев Л.К. Технология перевода: Учеб. пособие для студ. лингв. вузов и фак. - 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. - М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2005. - 320 с.

19 В.Н. Базылев. Обусловленность переводческих трансформаций. // Вестник Самарского Государственного Университета, http://ssu.samara.ru/~vestnik/est/, Серия "Лингвистика И Межкультурная Коммуникация", № 1, 2005. - 5 с.

20 Щетинкин В.Е. Пособие по переводу с французского языка на русский: Учеб. пособие для пед. ин-тов / В.Е. Щетинкин . - М. : Просвещение, 1987 . - 160 с.

21 Рецкер Я. И. Теория перевода и переводческая практика. Очерки лингвистической теории перевода / Дополнения и комментарии Ермоловича Д.И. - 3-е изд., стереотип. - М.: Р. Валент, 2007. - 244 с.

22 Переводческие трансформации [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://translations.web-3.ru/intro/equivalents/

23 Швейцер А.Д. Теория перевода (статус, проблемы, аспекты). - М.: Наука, 1988. - 216 с.

24 Большой энциклопедический словарь [Электронный ресурс]. - URL http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lower/15540

25 Вестминстерский дворец [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/

26 Методы перевода [Электронный ресурс]. -URL: http://www.flarus.ru/

27 Грамматическая замена [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://www.refegrad.ru/index.php

28 Судебные инны [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/

29 Соломыкина А.С., Каширина Н.А. Способы перевода имен собственных на материале американской публицистики // М.: Современные наукоемкие технологии, 2013. - № 7 (1). - 4 с.

30 Великобритания. Лингвострановедческий словарь [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://slovar-vocab.com/english-russian/linguistic-cultural-vocab/house-of-lancaster-1135769.html

31 Англо-русский словарь Мюллера В.К. [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://slovar-vocab.com/english-russian/britain-vocab/yorkists-6184645.html

32 Первая битва при Сент-Олбанс [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/

33 Комиссаров В.Н. Современное переводоведение. Учебное пособие. - M.: ЭТС, 2002. - 424 с.

ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ А

Оригинал фрагмента книги “Lancaster and York. The Wars of the Roses” by Alison Weir

13

The Wars of the Roses

York's protectorate had not lasted long enough for his reforms of the Council and the royal household to be of any lasting value. On 9 February 1455 the King appeared unexpectedly in Parliament, to the delighted astonishment of all present, thanked the members for their loyalty and concern, and dismissed York from the office of Protector. He then dissolved Parliament, amid cheers from Lancastrian supporters. Benet says that York formally resigned his office to the King `at Greenwich, after he had governed England most excellently and nobly for a whole year, miraculously pacifying all rebels and malefactors according to the laws and without great rigour, in a wonderful manner, and he resigned his office much honoured and much loved'.

As soon as York had stepped down, there was a Lancastrian backlash against his followers. Salisbury was dismissed, and his office of Chancellor given to Archbishop Bourchier, who was careful to remain neutral, although he later came to support the Yorkists. The Queen's favourite, Wiltshire, was made Treasurer, and the Duke of Exeter was set at liberty. Margaret, of course, wasted no time in demanding of the King that he release Somerset from the Tower, and on the 16th the Duke was set at liberty; the offices that York had taken from him, those of Constable of England and Captain of Calais, were immediately restored to him. `Once more,' wrote Benet, `the Duke of Somerset became head of the government under the King, although in the past he had almost ruined England with his misrule.' Back at court and restored to his former eminence, Somerset now plotted with the Queen to destroy York, while at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Duke of Buckingham, the King pardoned all those who had benefited from Somerset's imprisonment by receiving his confiscated offices.

On hearing the news of Somerset's release, York had retired in disgust to his northern stronghold, Sandal Castle, near Wakefield in Yorkshire, knowing that he was once again in the political wilderness and that Somerset would attempt to take revenge on him. Salisbury also rode north to his castle at Middleham; he too faced an uncertain future. But York and his allies had no intention of remaining out in the cold, and soon began discussing how best to deal with the problem of Somerset.

By March 1455, many Lancastrian lords had been reinstated in their former positions of honour, a policy seemingly calculated to provoke York. The Queen had recently cultivated the support of the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford, both of whom were now committed Lancastrians. Neither had any reason to love York, for he was the ally of their greatest enemies, the Nevilles. Margaret was also whipping up aristocratic support for the House of Lancaster in Wales and the West Country. She was well aware that York enjoyed considerable influence in the Welsh Marches, and could foresee problems if her enemy was able to extend that influence along the whole of the Welsh border. Here were to be found the estates of Warwick, Sir William Herbert, Edward Neville, Lord Bergavenny, and the Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham was staunchly loyal to the King, but what of the others? Margaret therefore did her best to ensure the continuing loyalty of Jasper Tudor, and even set out to woo Herbert, who was of York's affinity. Herbert was not a man to be trusted, and for the next few years York and the Queen would compete with each other to win his loyalty. Later, after Pembroke established Lancastrian authority in western Wales, Margaret would redouble her efforts to enlist Herbert's support.

Soon after Easter, wrote Benet, another dispute arose between York and Somerset, `for Somerset was plotting the destruction of York. He offered advice to the King, saying that the Duke of York wished to depose the King and rule England himself - which was manifestly false.' Then Warwick learned through his spies that Somerset was planning to hold a secret conference at Westminster, to which only those peers sympathetic to the court faction would be invited.

York and Salisbury were not prepared to wait and see what the Queen and Somerset would do. Urged on by Warwick, they were busy raising an army, for which they were recruiting men from the northern marches along the Scottish border. It would appear that these levies were summoned to muster at both Middleham and Sandal. Early in May, Warwick began assembling a large force at Warwick Castle. As well as preparing for an armed confrontation, York, Salisbury and Warwick all wrote to the King protesting their loyalty. Their letters were intercepted by the court faction and never reached him.

Although the Queen and her supporters firmly believed that York had designs on the throne, there is no evidence at this time to show that he did. People might remember that the Lancastrian kings were usurpers, but they had nevertheless occupied the throne virtually unchallenged for half a century, recognised by Parliament and the people, and anointed and consecrated at their coronations. Even if York had wished to make a bid for the throne, very few nobles would have supported him. The risks involved were too great, and he was not sufficiently popular among them. Even if some of his supporters felt that the Duke had been ousted from the succession by a prince of questionable legitimacy, they did not voice their concerns at this time.

Early in May, the Queen and Somerset, instead of holding a conference at Westminster as planned, summoned a large number of Lancastrian magnates to a great council to be held at Leicester, a town at the centre of a region in which Lancastrian loyalties predominated. The main business on the agenda was to make provision for the King's safety `against his enemies'. As York, Salisbury and Warwick were not invited to attend, there could be little doubt as to who these enemies were and what the true purpose of the council was to be. The Queen and Somerset had persuaded the King that York meant to seize his throne, and Henry issued a summons requiring him and his allies, Salisbury and Warwick, to present themselves before the council on 21 May. To York, this sounded ominously like a repeat performance of what had happened to the Duke of Gloucester in 1447, and he now made up his mind to pre-empt Somerset and strike first.

A colourful legend, enshrined in the plays of Shakespeare, relates that the Wars of the Roses broke out in the gardens of the Inns of Temple in London. York and Somerset were one day walking there and fell into an argument, in the course of which Somerset plucked a red rose from a nearby bush and said, `Let all of my party wear this flower!' York, not to be outdone, picked a white rose to be the emblem of his party.

Sadly, there is no truth in the legend. York was in the north in May 1455, when the incident is said to have taken place, and there is no evidence that the red rose was used as a badge by the House of Lancaster at this date. Nevertheless, red and white roses have been grown in the Temple Gardens since the sixteenth century to commemorate the event.

The white rose was certainly one of the badges of the House of York, although York's personal badge was the falcon and fetterlock. Many modern historians claim that the Lancastrian red rose symbol was invented as propaganda by the first Tudor king, Henry VII. York Civic Records state that in 1486, while on progress in the north, he gave orders for a pageant to be held at York, incorporating `a royal, rich, red rose, unto which rose shall appear another rich, white rose, unto whom all flowers shall give sovereignty, and there shall come from the cloud a crown covering the roses'. Thus evolved the Tudor badge of the Rose and Crown, representing the union of Lancaster and York, Henry VII having recently married Elizabeth of York. The Croyland Chronicle, written in April 1486, also refers to the red rose of Lancaster. There is evidence, though, that the red rose symbol dates from at least as early as the reign of Edward IV, for a Yorkist genealogy drawn up during this time, and now in the British Library, shows a bush bearing both red and white roses. It should be borne in mind that the rose badges were just two of a number of badges used by members of the houses of Lancaster and York.

What we now call the Wars of the Roses were sometimes referred to by contemporaries as the `Cousins' Wars'. The phrase `Wars of the Roses' was coined by Sir Walter Scott in his novel Anne of Geierstein, published in 1829, but the concept was by no means new and originated in fifteenth-century propaganda. A pamphlet of Sir Thomas Smith, written in 1561, referred to `the striving of the two roses', while Sir John Oglander wrote in 1646 a tract called The Quarrel of the Warring Roses, and David Hume, in 1761, published The Wars of the Two Roses.

Modern historians date the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses to May 1455, when the first pitched battle took place, though, as we have seen, the conflict had been gathering momentum for some time before then.

Instead of obeying the royal summons, York mobilised his army and began the long march south to London, probably with the intention of intercepting the King before he left for Leicester. With him went his allies, Salisbury, Lord Clinton, Lord Grey of Powys, and Sir Robert Ogle, all with an armed following of their own, Ogle having `600 men of the Welsh Marches'. Viscount Bourchier and Lord Cobham may also have been among their number. In the middle of May, Warwick led his army of a thousand men across the heart of England, linking up with York and Salisbury on Ermine Street, the old Roman road. York's chief objectives were the annihilation of Somerset, the dispersal of the court party, and his own restoration to the Council, which would bring with it control of the King and the government.

By the 18th, Somerset and the council had been warned that the Yorkists were approaching London with 7000 well-armed men. Benet says: `When the Duke of Somerset heard this news he suggested to the King that York had come to usurp the throne. For this reason, the King sided with the Duke of Somerset,' and authorised him to raise a small army.

On the 20th York's company arrived at Royston in Hertfordshire. Here its leaders issued a manifesto declaring to the people that they meant no harm to the King and that they had raised their army and marched south `only to keep ourselves out of the danger whereunto our enemies have not ceased to study, labour and compass to bring us'. A copy was sent to the King with a covering letter in which York and his allies begged him not to believe the accusations made against them by their enemies, but again both documents were intercepted, this time by Somerset himself, who destroyed them.

York was hoping that Norfolk would rally to his support, but although the Duke led a force into Hertfordshire, he made no attempt to join either side, preferring to remain neutral for the present. York had tried on the way south to raise more aristocratic support for his cause, but with little success. His advance at the head of an army looked very much like rebellion, even treason, in view of his public oath that he would never again take up arms against his sovereign.

While he was still at Royston, York learned that Henry VI and Somerset were about to leave London at the head of an army. On 21 May the Yorkists marched into Ware, where they were told by their scouts that the royal army was advancing north along Watling Street. The Queen was not with them, having taken the Prince of Wales to Greenwich, where she remained during the ensuing hostilities. That same day, York sent a further appeal to the King, along with a copy of his manifesto. Neither got past Somerset.

Meanwhile, the King and his army had reached Watford, where they spent the night, leaving very early on the morning of the 22nd. York's scouts advised him that Henry was making for St Albans, and the Duke swung west from Ware to confront him. On the road to St Albans the King received intelligence that the Yorkist army was nearing the town. Buckingham urged Henry to press on to St Albans, meet York's threat head-on, and deal with it firmly, for he was convinced that York would prefer to negotiate a settlement rather than resort to military force. He was also aware that the Yorkist army was larger than the King's, and believed it would be safer to await reinforcements in the town than in an exposed position in the countryside.

By 1455 there was little remaining of the original fortifications that had encircled St Albans, just a thirteenth-century ditch, along which wooden barricades could be erected so as to prevent an enemy from entering the market-place. After arriving in St Albans early in the morning of the 22nd, the King commanded his soldiers to occupy the ditch and make it `strongly barred and arrayed for defence', pitching his own camp in the market-place. York, meanwhile, had decided to camp in Key Field, to the east of St Peter's Street and Holywell Street (now Holywell Hill), and set his men to blocking the exits from the town on that side.

In 1460, the Milanese ambassador was informed `that on that day there were 300,000 men under arms, and indeed the whole of England was stirred, so that some even speak of larger numbers'. This was a gross exaggeration. Benet says that Warwick arrived with 2000 men, York with 3000 and Salisbury with 2000, `all well-prepared for battle'. It has been estimated that the royal army numbered 2-3000 men, and may have been short of archers. The Yorkists not only had a strong force of archers but also cannon. Henry had sent an urgent summons to local levies to reinforce his ranks, but they were not ready in time. Only eighteen out of the seventy peers were present at St Albans; thirteen, including Pembroke, were with the King. Others, including Oxford, Shrewsbury, Lord Cromwell and Sir Thomas Stanley, were still on their way.

The King's army was under the command of Buckingham, who was hereditary Constable of the realm and had been appointed the King's Lieutenant for the occasion. Thomas, 8th Lord Clifford, who commanded the Lancastrian vanguard, had earned a distinguished reputation as a veteran of the French wars and for his successes on the Scottish border. The Lancastrian army consisted mainly of knights, members of the King's household, and the affinities of those few lords who were with him, many of whom came from the eastern counties. Abbot Whethamstead of St Albans, who gives an eyewitness account of these events, states that the East Anglian lords and gentlemen were less warlike than the men of the north in the Yorkist army, `for whom wheat and barley' - which they meant to have as plunder - `are like gold and ebony'. The northerners were regarded as foreign savages in the south, and enjoyed a fearsome reputation as ferocious fighters and rapacious looters.

York's army was drawn up into three divisions, as was customary, commanded by himself and `the captains of the field', Salisbury and Warwick, the latter having command of the reserve, who were on foot. With York was his thirteen-year-old son, March, who was receiving his first taste of battle, nominally at the head of a small company of seasoned border campaigners. Also with York was Sir John Wenlock, latterly chamberlain to the Queen, who had transferred his loyalty to the Yorkist cause, which he would support for some years to come.

The commencement of the battle was delayed for three hours, during which York made every effort to induce the King to listen to his complaints about the misgovernment of Somerset and other `traitors'. York's messenger, Mowbray Herald, opened negotiations by entering the town `at the barrier' at the north end of St Peter's Street, where he was challenged. The herald bore a message from York, suggesting that the King's army might wish to retreat to Barnet or Hatfield for the night while negotiations proceeded.

Because his army was the smaller, Henry knew it was to his advantage to negotiate a peaceful settlement, and he sent Buckingham, who was Salisbury's brother-in-law, to ascertain York's intentions. York told him that he and his company had come as `rightful and true subjects', who desired only that the King deliver up to them `such as we will accuse'. When Buckingham reported these words to Henry, the monarch became uncharacteristically wrathful. Goaded by Somerset, he sent Buckingham back to York with a peremptory message:

I, King Harry, charge and command that no manner of person abide not, but void the field and not be so hard to make any resistance against me in mine own realm; for I shall know what traitor dare be so bold to raise a people in mine own land, where-through I am in great dis-ease and heaviness. And by the faith that I owe to St Edward and the Crown of England, I shall destroy them, every mother's son, and they be hanged, drawn and quartered that may be taken afterward, of them to have example to all such traitors to beware to make any such rising of people within my land, and so traitorly to abide their King and Governor. And for a conclusion, rather than they shall have any lord here with me at this time, I shall this day for their sake, and in this quarrel, myself live and die.

York had failed, thanks in part to the hostility of Buckingham who meant to have him accused before the council at Leicester. The King, in any case, had no intention of delivering Somerset into York's clutches. Instead, he ordered his standard to be raised in the market-place, had himself clad in plate armour, and mounted his warhorse, positioning it under the fluttering banner. Here he remained for the duration of the battle. Before the fighting commenced, he gave orders that only the lives of the common foot soldiers were to be spared: lords, gentry and yeomen might be put to the sword. Many of the royal soldiers were still hastening back to their positions, having drifted off into the town, seeking refreshment after Buckingham had gone to parley with York.

York, learning that the King refused to accede to any of his demands, grimly put on his helmet and ordered his trumpeter to sound the alarm which would warn his men that the battle was about to begin. He then made a speech to his troops, using many classical and biblical allusions, saying that he represented Joab, while King Henry was as King David, and together they would overcome Somerset. Thus commenced the Battle of St Albans, the first battle of the Wars of the Roses, some time between ten and twelve in the morning.

York and Salisbury opened the attack from the east, leading charges along St Peter's Street, Sopwell Street and other streets leading to the market-place, and ordering their men to storm the barricades at the end of them, but Lord Clifford and other Lancastrian commanders `strongly kept the barriers' at every entry. As more Lancastrian troops rallied to the defence, York and Salisbury found themselves being pushed back. Warwick, hearing that their situation was critical, `took and gathered his men together and furiously broke in [the town] by the garden sides, between the sign of the Key and the sign of the Checker in Holywell Street', according to an account in the Stonor Papers. Once in the town, he had his trumpets sounded, and his men responded `with a shout and a great voice, “A Warwick! A Warwick!” ' With his progress covered by archers to the rear, Warwick led a fresh assault on the barricades that left his opponents reeling, for they had not expected him to approach from that end of the town.

`The fighting', says Benet, `was furious', as the market-place became crammed with soldiers locked in a furious combat. As Sir Robert Ogle led his contingent into the mкlйe, `the alarm bell was rung and every man went to harness', for many of the King's troops were `out of their array', not having anticipated that they would be engaged so soon. Within half an hour it was over. As Henry's men, alerted by the bell sounding in the clock tower in the market-place, raced to defend him, Warwick's soldiers scythed mercilessly through the Lancastrian ranks until, says Whethamstead - a horrified witness to the carnage - `the whole street was full of dead corpses'. The King's army, `disliking the sight of blood', broke into disarray and withdrew in a stampede, knocking down and trampling underfoot the royal standard as they did so. The Stonor Papers record that the Earl of Wiltshire `and many others fled, leaving their harness behind them coward'; Wiltshire, says the chronicler `Gregory', was `afraid to lose his beauty'. Many of the King's party were despoiled of their horses and harness, and the royal banner was retrieved and propped against a house wall, while Henry stood alone and deserted, watching the flight of his men as arrows rained down about him. The Yorkists had won the battle.

Warwick had specifically instructed his archers to target those about the King - members of the hated court party - and many fell, mortally wounded, near the royal standard. As the battle drew to a close, Henry was wounded in the neck by an arrow and, bleeding profusely, was urged by his remaining nobles to take shelter. As he ran to the nearby house of a tanner, he cried out angrily, `Forsooth, ye do foully to smite a king anointed so!'

Buckingham received wounds to the face and neck and was taken prisoner by the Yorkists. Lord Dudley also got an arrow in the face, and Lord Stafford one in the hand. Henry Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, Somerset's heir, was so badly hurt that he could not walk and had to be taken home in a cart, as was Wenlock. Benet says that `all who were on the side of the Duke of Somerset were killed, wounded, or, at the least, despoiled'.

Somerset himself had been engaged in desperate hand-to-hand fighting outside an inn called the Castle. Later, it was said that, seeing the sign above him, he was utterly dismayed because he had once been warned by a soothsayer to beware of castles. His opponent - who may even have been Warwick himself - saw him falter, struck home, and killed him. He was later buried in St Albans Abbey, and was succeeded as Duke of Somerset by his son, the nineteen-year-old Earl of Dorset, whom Chastellain describes as `a handsome young knight'. A commemorative plaque now marks the site of the Castle Inn, which stood at the corner of St Peter's Street and what is now Victoria Street.

Other noble casualties of the battle were Warwick's great enemy, Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland, and Lord Clifford, who were both slain while fighting in the streets. Their bodies were stripped and despoiled, and left naked to public view. Buckingham's son, Humphrey Stafford, suffered grievous wounds and later died of the effects of them, either in 1455 or 1458. Benet says that `about a hundred people were killed, mostly Lancastrian soldiers'. Abbot Whethamstead requested York's permission to bury the dead, and begged him to show mercy in his hour of victory, as did Julius Caesar. Quoting Ovid, he asked that nothing be sought in addition to victory.

The outcome of the Battle of St Albans, one of the shortest campaigns of the Wars of the Roses, was that York was able to crush the court faction, which had been deprived of its chief mainstay, Somerset. Much of the blame for the Lancastrian defeat lay with Buckingham, whose judgement and strategies had been fatally flawed. The royal army had faced an almost impossible task in defending all the entrances to the town. They had had little time in which to prepare their defences, and Buckingham had probably made the mistake of relying on some of the buildings to offer a degree of protection.

York, accompanied by Salisbury and Warwick, now moved to take control of the King's person, which they found in the tanner's house having his wound tended. All his earlier bravado had evaporated at the realisation that his army had been defeated. The Stonor Papers record that, when the Yorkist lords came to the King, they fell on their knees `and besought him for grace and forgiveness of that they had done in his presence, and besought him, of his highness, to take them as his true liegemen, saying that they never intended hurt to his own person'. Benet says that when Henry heard them declare themselves to be his `humble servants, he was greatly cheered'.

York justified his actions to Henry by pleading that he and his friends had had no alternative but to defend themselves against their enemies. If they had gone to Leicester, as summoned, they would have been taken prisoner and suffered a shameful death as traitors, `losing our livelihood and goods, and our heirs shamed for ever'. Henry seemed to accept this and `took them to grace, and so desired them to cease their people, and then there should no more harm be done'. Outside in the town, the victorious Yorkist troops were causing havoc. Abbot Whethamstead was shocked to see them rampaging through the streets, looting as they went and leaving behind a trail of destruction. Even in the abbey they stole everything they could lay their hands on, and threatened to burn it down. Then others came, warning them that the King and York, accompanied by the magnates and councillors, had arrived in the market-place and ordered them to reassemble, ready to return to London. Thus the abbey was saved.

York himself had broken the news of Somerset's death to the King. Some historians assert that shock, grief, stress and the effects of the wound he had suffered caused Henry to lapse once more into insanity - it was, after all, only five months since his recovery. However, there is no contemporary evidence to support this, and another six months would elapse before York was again appointed Protector. In view of the length of the King's previous illness, it is likely that the appointment would have taken effect immediately if Henry had displayed symptoms of mental instability. The last word on the subject should be that of John Crane, who wrote to John Paston on 25 May: `As for our sovereign lord, thanked be God, he has no great harm.'

The fact that a battle had taken place at all shocked many people, even the participants, and provoked the Yorkists into offering extravagant justification of their actions in which they attempted to shift the blame on to Somerset and the court party and thus avoid any suspicion of treason. Nevertheless, the fact remained that they had taken up arms against an army led by their anointed king, and this was enough, in the opinion of many, to condemn them as traitors. To counteract this ill-feeling, York issued a broadsheet giving his account of the battle and the circumstances leading up to it.

St Albans had accentuated the deep divisions between the magnates and the widespread grievances against the government, which could now, it seemed, only be settled by violence. This realisation acted as a brake for a time upon the warring factions. Neither side had wanted an armed conflict; the King, in particular, and most of his lords were determined that it should not occur again. But the divisions between Lancastrians and Yorkists were now so profound that it would need a committed effort on both sides to preserve the King's peace. That an uneasy truce prevailed for the next four years is sufficient testimony to the desire of both sides to reach an acceptable settlement.

On Friday 23 May, York and Salisbury, preceded by Warwick bearing the King's sword, escorted Henry VI back to London, where he lodged at the bishop's palace by St Paul's Cathedral. `As for what rule we shall now have, I do not yet know,' wrote a Paston correspondent. On Sunday the 25th, the Feast of Pentecost, the King went in procession to St Paul's, wearing his crown, to reassure the people that his royal authority had not been in any way challenged. So potent was the power and mystique of monarchy that still no one ventured to voice the opinion that Henry himself should bear the ultimate responsibility for recent events. There were no calls for his deposition, and no criticisms of his incompetence or poor judgement.

News of the court party's defeat and the death of Somerset had soon reached the Queen at Greenwich, causing her deep distress, and the knowledge that York was now to assume the role of chief adviser to the King in Somerset's place only added to her bitterness. York was immediately appointed Constable of England, an office Somerset had held, and was already filling the late duke's other offices with men of his own choosing.

In the week after St Albans, Buckingham, Wiltshire, Shrewsbury, Pembroke and other lords, all back at court, made peace with York and did their best to reconcile the two sides. Jasper Tudor was particularly anxious to devise with York a workable solution to the problems facing the government, and the two men spent many hours in London discussing these.

But although Somerset was dead, his faction remained. Its members were more hostile than ever towards York, and looked to the Queen, whose influence over a suspicious and resentful Henry VI was paramount, for leadership. York was aware of this, and he knew that some of the King's household would resist any attempt at reform. He also had to deal with the enmity of individual noblemen, who had good reason to feel bitterness towards him. Lord Clifford's twenty-year-old son John, now the 9th Lord Clifford, was so incensed against York that he would spend the rest of his life seeking to avenge his father's death, earning in the process the nicknames `Black-faced Clifford' and `Bloody Clifford'.

By the beginning of July York had established himself as the effective ruler of England. He had appointed his brother-in-law, Viscount Bourchier, Treasurer, and given Salisbury the influential office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Viscount Bourchier's brother, Archbishop Thomas Bourchier, remained as Chancellor, and was now demonstrating that his sympathies were leaning towards the Yorkists. However, York's continuing lack of general aristocratic support led him to rely heavily on the Nevilles and to pursue a policy of conciliation. The problem of the Queen had been dealt with by forbidding her to come to London. Other than that, however, he did not seek vengeance on those who had opposed him.

York ruled as before, with wisdom and moderation. On 9 July Parliament, summoned by the Duke in the King's name at the end of May, met at Westminster in the presence of the ailing Henry VI. Predictably this Parliament was packed with York's supporters. Sir John Wenlock, now Warwick's man, was Speaker. When the Lords and Commons had assembled, York and his fellow magnates renewed their oaths of allegiance to the King in the Great Council Chamber in the Palace of Westminster.

York ensured the passing of an Act which justified his recent uprising on the grounds that `the government, as it was managed by the Queen, the Duke of Somerset and their friends, had been of late a great tyranny and injustice to the people', emphasised his efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement, which had been frustrated by the King's advisers, and pardoned all those involved. At the same time, also under York's auspices, an Act was passed rehabilitating Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, whose political heir York considered himself to be.

Parliament was also anxious to regulate the Crown's tortuous finances, and approved a new Act of Resumption, cancelling nearly every grant the King had made during his reign. The only exemptions were those grants to the Tudors made since 1452, but even these were unpopular with York and other lords, who felt there should be no exclusions. Nevertheless, Richmond and Pembroke had offered their support to York without compromising their loyalty to the King, and they were now exerting a moderating influence in this Parliament, though the time was fast approaching when, because of the ever-widening rift between Lancastrians and Yorkists, they would have to decide where their true loyalties lay.

After Parliament had completed its business - but not before Warwick had fallen out with Lord Cromwell over which side had initiated the recent hostilities - York dispatched the King and Queen, with the Prince of Wales, to Hertford Castle. Shortly afterwards Margaret took her child to Greenwich, and it may be at this time that Henry was showing once more signs of mental illness.

In October 1455 Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, at last married Margaret Beaufort, the ceremony taking place at Bletsoe Castle in Bedfordshire. The groom was twenty-five, the bride twelve. She was a strong-minded child who would grow up to be one of the most formidable women of the age, renowned for her piety, her many charities, and her unwavering devotion to the House of Lancaster. She was intelligent, serious and high-minded, and her impeccable Lancastrian credentials, her great inheritance, and the fact that she was Somerset's niece, made her a fitting match for the King's half-brother. By this marriage Henry VI had hoped to build up a core of committed family support for the Crown; for Richmond, it meant rapid social advancement.

Margaret later claimed it had been revealed to her in a vision that she should wed Richmond and, being a very devout girl, she had wished to see the vision fulfilled. That the marriage would produce a future king of England none could have foreseen at the time, but the Lady Margaret Beaufort was a great believer in destiny.