De officio marescalcie servivit Gilbertus comes de Stroghull cuius est officium tumultus sedare in domo Regis, liberaciones officiorum[632] facere, hostia aule Regis custodire. Recipit autem de quolibet Barone facto milite a Rege et quolibet comite palefridum cum sella. It is this last extract, as I explained above, which is reproduced in Norman-French in Countess Margaret’s petition, with the interpolation of the words which have caused all the confusion. And here it is necessary to observe that the interesting reference it contains to the knighting of a ‘Baron’ by the king is reduced to what Mr. Freeman would have termed “hideous nonsense” in the official edition of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer.’ We there read: Recepit autem de quolibet arma, facto milite a Rege, et [de] quolibet comite ea die palefridum cum sella (p. 759). In the ‘Red Book’ itself, indeed, the text is now illegible, but Mr. Hall tells us that he used the Hargrave MS. for “restoring certain defaced or missing passages” (p. li.). Now in the Hargrave MS. (fo. 132[633]) the reading is “as clear as a pikestaff”; it could not be clearer if it were printed. And it is the same reading as we find in the above extracts: Recipit autem de quol[ibet] _Barone_ facto milite a rege et quol[ibet] com[ite] ea die, etc. Yet Mr. Hall reads: “de quolibet _arma_, facto.” Really, when one knows that he has undertaken to teach how mediæval MSS. should be edited,[634] one is driven again reluctantly to ask whether such editing as this should be styled a farce or a burlesque.[635] Before returning to the ‘Modus,’ the point from which we started, we must clear up the confusion that surrounds the title of Earl Marshal. Camden, apparently, was led by the error in the claim of 1377 to assign the treatise on the office of Marshal to the time of Henry II.[636] Coke went further, and, as M. Bémont says, confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise. It is the close connexion between the two that leads up to my theory.[637]