l. 7731; a mistake which might very easily be made, owing to the
occurrence of “Plains” only eleven lines above, and the absence of any mention of Casal des Bains elsewhere in the poem.
NOTE V
_Richard’s Homage to the Emperor_
Seven contemporary or nearly contemporary writers state that Richard, to purchase his freedom, did homage to Henry VI. Three of these—one English and two German—assert distinctly that the kingdom of England was included in this homage; two of the others—one German and one French—imply the same.
(1) “Ricardus rex Angliae in captione Henrici Romanorum imperatoris detentus, ut captionem illam evaderet, consilio Alienor matris suae deposuit se de regno Angliae et tradidit illud imperatori sicut universorum domino; et investivit eum inde per pilleum suum; sed imperator, sicut praelocutum fuit, statim reddidit ei, in conspectu magnatium Alemanniae et Angliae, regnum Angliae praedictum, tenendum de ipso pro quinque millia librarum sterlingorum singulis annis de tributo solvendis; et investivit eum inde imperator per duplicem crucem de auro.” R. Howden, iii. 202, 203.
(2) The _Annals of Marbach_ (Pertz, xvii. 165) say Richard was released “tota terra sua, Anglia et aliis terris suis propriis, imperatori datis et ab eo in beneficio receptis.”
(3) “Legium ipsi [imperatori] faciens hominium, coronam regni sui ab ipso recepit,” _Gesta Episc. Halberstad._ (Pertz, xxiii. 110).
(4) “Terram propriam ... imperatori tradidit et a manu imperatoris sceptro investitus suscepit. Juravitque fidelitatem Romano Imperatori et Romano Imperio et privilegio exinde facto propria manu subscripsit. Tantam itaque devotionem regis intuens imperator sceptrum regium quod in manu sua tenebat regi contulit, ut hoc insigni dono in posterum uteretur.... Acta sunt haec apud Maguntium.” _Ann. Salsburg. Additamenta_, Pertz, xiii. 240.
(5) William the Breton represents Richard as offering to give the Emperor a hundred thousand marks, and adding: “Meque sceptrumque meum subjecta fatebor.... Rex igitur dictum re firmat, et inde recedit liber.” _Philippis_, lib. iv., vv. 419, 426-7.
(6) “Accepta infinita summa pecuniae et hominio ejus ... [imperator regem] absolutum permittit abire.” _Reineri Ann._, Pertz, xvi. 651.
(7) “[Richardus] Imperio postquam jurans se subdidit, inquit: ‘Vivat in aeternum lux mea, liber eo.’”—_P. de Ebulo_, ll. 1087-8.
Of all these authorities, only the first is of any real value. The German sources for this period are all mere monastic or ecclesiastical chronicles; the Annals of Marbach are among the best. The Acts of the Bishops of Halberstadt date from the thirteenth century. Reiner’s Annals are a section, ending in 1230, of a group of Chronicles of Liége; Reiner himself was born in 1155. The Additions to the Salzburg Annals are absolutely worthless; they are full of absurdities; and some of their statements about Richard are so obviously unhistorical that their German editor in his footnotes twice denounces them as “fables”—“Hoc jam fabulis plena de Richardi regis gestis” (p. 238)—“Iterum fabulae sequuntur prioribus pejores” (p. 240). Peter of Ebulo and William of Armorica can only have had their information at—to say the least—second hand, and from sources hostile to Richard; Peter was the panegyrist of Henry VI, William the historiographer of Philip Augustus; both, too, wrote in verse, and are open to the suspicion of a liberal use of poetic licence to exalt their respective heroes and diminish the glory of him who was the most illustrious rival of those two sovereigns. Had we only these six writers to deal with, we might be justified in treating the whole story as a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of an act of homage done to Henry by Richard for the kingdom of Burgundy, although, oddly enough, not one of them so much as mentions Burgundy at all. But Roger of Howden is not so easy to dispose of. He was a sober-minded and well-informed English historian, whose work in many places shows that he had access to the best official sources of contemporary information; in his case misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the subject are both alike almost inconceivable; and, moreover, his version of the matter is indirectly corroborated by another writer whose general accuracy and correct information rank as high, and whose facilities for learning the truth on this particular point were probably even greater than those of Roger himself. Ralf de Diceto (ii. 113) writes as follows: “Pactiones initae sunt plures inter imperatorem et regem, ad persolvendam non spectantes pecuniam, sed ad statum regis intervertendum; inter quas quicquid insertum est ab initio vitiosum, quicquid contra leges, contra canones, contra bonos mores indubitanter conceptum, licet ex parte regis et suorum fidelium ad hoc observandum fuerit jusjurandum adauctum, emissa licet patentia scripta, licet in mundum universitatis recepta, licet a partibus absoluta, quia tamen contra jus elicita robur firmitatis obtinere non debent in posterum, nec ullo tractu temporis convalescere.” These words seem distinctly to point to something more than homage merely for the kingdom of Arles, a homage which there could surely be no reason for Ralf or anyone else to denounce as so “vicious from the outset, so contrary to law, morality, and right” as to be utterly null and void. We must also remember that Ralf was a close friend of Archbishop Walter of Rouen, who was in correspondence with him at this very time, and who was present at the whole ceremony of Richard’s release.
NOTE VI
_Richard, William of Longchamps, and the Great Seal_
Roger of Howden in his account of the year 1194, after giving the terms of the truce made between the representatives of the two kings on July 23 in the form of a proclamation addressed “to all whom it may concern” by Drogo de Merlo the Constable of France, Anselm the Dean of S. Martin’s at Tours, and Urse the French king’s chamberlain (iii. 257-60), diverges to English affairs (260-7) and then returns to continental ones as follows:
“Deinde [Ricardus Rex] veniens in Normanniam moleste tulit quicquid factum fuerit de supradictis treugis, et imputans cancellario suo hoc per eum fuisse factum, abstulit ab eo sigillum suum, et fecit sibi novum sigillum fieri, et mandavit per singulas terras suas quod nihil ratum foret quod fuerat per vetus sigillum suum; tum quia cancellarius ille operatus fuerat inde minus discrete quam esset necesse, tum quia sigillum illud perditum erat quando Rogerus Malus Catulus, vice-cancellarius suus, submersus erat in mare ante insulam de Cipro. Et praecepit rex quod omnes qui cartas habebant venirent ad novum sigillum suum ad cartas suas renovandas.” R. Howden, iii. 267.
This story is certainly not strictly accurate; it was not till 1198 that Richard changed his seal, and if the seal was withdrawn from William of Ely in 1194, it was restored to him almost immediately, and he remained the king’s chancellor and trusted friend to the end of Richard’s life. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Richard did momentarily contemplate in 1194 a change of seal and the consequent requirement of confirmation of charters issued under the old seal. When this actually took place four years later, he himself stated his reasons for it as follows: “Quod” [sc. primum sigillum nostrum] “quia aliquando perditum erat, et dum capti essemus in Alemannia in aliena potestate constitutum, mutatum est.” (Confirmation of a charter to Ely, July 1, 1198, printed in _Ramsey Cartulary_, ed. Hart and Lyons, i. 115, and also in Round’s _Feudal England_, 542). Mr. Round dismisses Roger’s story as sheer fiction, on the ground that the second reason here given by Richard is “wholly and essentially different” from the first reason given by Roger. Even if this be so, it does not necessarily follow that the whole of Roger’s story is either a fiction, or a delusion, or misdated. Richard’s own statement of his motives is obviously a mere excuse; the self-evident fact that while he was in prison the seal was necessarily “in the power of another” might be a ground for annulling acts passed under it during that time, but could be no genuine reason for revoking likewise all other acts passed under it. One at least of his excuses, however, is far more likely to have been invented in 1194 than in 1198. The king’s temporary loss of control over the seal in 1193-4 might be a colourable pretext for getting rid of the discredited instrument at the earliest possible moment, but could in no way account for its repudiation after it had been, without necessity, suffered to remain in use for four years.
INDEX
Abou Bekr, 251, 256
Achard of Châlus, 325
Acre, Philip arrives at, 145; siege of, 154, 161-162; negotiations for surrender, 162-164; surrender of, 164; discussions about terms, 169-171; slaughter of garrison, 172; disturbances at, 211; capitulation of, 331-332
Aixe taken by Richard, 20
Alfonso II, King of Aragon, 11, 56
Aloysia of France, betrothed to Richard, 9; her promised dowry, 22; disputes about, 25, 62, 67, 72; betrothal renewed, 65, 82; marriage with John proposed, 86; engagement to Richard finally broken off, 136-137; sent back to France, 302; married, 313
Amalric I, king of Jerusalem, 158
Amwas, 233
Andely, 305, 308, 309; disputed between archbishop and king, 309; Richard’s building at, 310-311
Angoulême, disputed succession to, 39-41
Angoulême, Aimar, count of, 39, 41 note 4, 44-45, 74, 297
Angoulême, Elias, count of, 41 note 4
Angoulême, Maud, heiress of, 39
Angoulême, Vulgrin III, count of, 19, 20, 29, 31, 38
Angoulême, William IV, count of, 5, 7, 15, 20, 29, 38
Angoulême, William V, count of, 39, 41 note 4
Anjou, Stephen, seneschal of, 93
Aquitaine, Ralf de Diceto’s description of, 3; its extent and boundaries, 4; risings in, 5, 7, 8; Richard made duke of, 9; its feudal position in 1169, 10; rebels in, 15, 40-44; ravages of Routiers in, 51, 53; end of rebellion, 55-56; Henry proposes to transfer it to John, 50, 60; invaded by John and Geoffrey, 62; Henry II’s dealings with, 65; revolts in, 276, 297; disuse of the name in Richard’s later years, 324
Aragon, Alfonso, king of, _see_ Alfonso
Arras besieged by Baldwin of Flanders, 315; relieved by Philip Augustus, _ib._
Arsuf, battle of, 185-188
Arthur of Britanny, _see_ Britanny
Ascalon, 177; its importance, 190; razed by Saladin, _ib._; rebuilding of, 209; Richard at, 214; negotiations concerning, 257-259; again dismantled, 260
Aslam, Emir, 235-237
“Assassins,” 301
Athlit, 179
Austria, Leopold, duke of, 166, 330
Auvergne, rival claims upon, 7, 26-27, 94; Richard’s successes in, 315
Bagnara, La, 126
Baldwin IV, king of Jerusalem, 158
Baldwin V, king of Jerusalem, 158
Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, _see_ Canterbury
Barres, William des, 78, 79, 135, 138, 179, 187
Bath, Savaric, bishop of, 275
Beauvais, bishop of, captured by Mercadier, 315
Bedr-ed-Din, 230, 257-258
Beit Nuba, 205, 232, 240
Berengaria of Navarre, 62, 64; joins Richard in Sicily, 136; sails for Acre with Joan, 139; their adventures at sea, 141-142; marriage and coronation, 145
Berry, feudal position of, 4; Henry II in, 26
Bertin, Peter, seneschal of Aquitaine, 297
Béthune, Baldwin of, 93
Bigorre, count of, 21
Blanchegarde, 220, 221, 231
Blondel, 275
Bombrac, 198
Bonmoulins, meeting of kings at, 81-83
Bordeaux, Richard at, 21; burnt by Routiers, 38
Bordeaux, William, archbishop of, 15
Born, Bertrand de, 40-42, 45-47, 56
Born, Constantine de, 40
Boulogne, Reginald, count of, 313
Bourges, promised as Aloysia’s dowry, 22
Boutavant, 322
“Brabantines,” 15, 38
Britanny, revolt in (1173), 14; submits to Henry II, _ib._; Richard’s relations with, 306, 313
Britanny, Arthur, duke of, 306
Britanny, Geoffrey, duke of, _see_ Geoffrey
Burgundy, Hugh, duke of, 55, 130, 207, 211, 218, 241
Burgundy or Provence, kingdom of, 283, 284
Cadoc, 307
Caesarea, 180, 181
Camville, Richard de, 148
Canebrake of Starlings, 225
Canterbury, Baldwin, Archbishop of, 120
Canterbury, Hubert, Archbishop of, _see_ Hubert
Canterbury, Richard at, 107
Capharnaum, Crusaders at, 179
Casal of the Baths, 203-204, 334-336
Casal Imbert, 212
Casal Maen, 198
Casal of the Plains (Yazour), 198, 204, 207, 334-336
Casal of the Straits, 179
Casals, the Two, 333-334
Castillon-sur-Agen, taken by Richard, 19
Castle Arnold, 232
Catania, meeting of Richard and Tancred at, 137
Celestine III, Pope, his warning to the Emperor, 317
Chabot, Theobald, 19
Châlus, treasure-trove at, 325; besieged by Richard, _ib._; taken by Mercadier, 327
Champagne, Henry, count of, _see_ Henry
Champagne, Theobald, count of, 313
Château-Gaillard, 312, 316
Châteauroux, dispute about, 21, 22; taken by Henry II, 26; besieged by Philip of France, 68; truce made at, 69, 70; taken by Philip, 77; Richard’s attempt to regain it, 78
Châtillon, conference at, 80
Chinon, conference at, 7
Clairvaux, castle of, 46, 48
Cologne, election of emperor at, 318
Cologne, Adolf, archbishop of, 285-286
Colombières, meeting of kings at, 89
Comnenos, Isaac, _see_ Isaac
Conrad of Montferrat, 145, 151; character, 159; marries Isabel, _ib._, 160; rivalry with Guy, 160, 167; negotiations with Saladin, 194-195, 199; negotiates with Richard, 210; goes to Acre, 211; returns to Tyre, _ib._; declared to have forfeited the crown, 212; again chosen king, 215; slain, 216
Constance of Britanny, 306
Constance, heiress of Sicily, 124
Corfu, Richard at, 264, 266
Crispin, William, 315
Crocodiles, River of, 180, 181
Cross, relics of, 242
Curbaran, leader of Routiers, 53, 60
Cyprus, 141; adventures of Joan and Berengaria off, 142; English fleet reaches, 142-143; conquest of, 143-148; given to Guy of Lusignan, 261
Dangu surrendered to Richard, 315; razed by Philip, _ib._
Darum, 209, 222-223, 245
“Dead River,” the, 182
Déols, Ralf of, 21
Dirnstein or Dürrenstein, Richard imprisoned at, 271
Drincourt, siege of, 14
Durham, Hugh of Puiset, bishop of, 103, 113
Eleanor, Queen, prophecy concerning, 1; regent in Aquitaine, 8; at Limoges, 11; left guardian of Richard and Geoffrey, 12, 13; joins the French party, 13; imprisoned by Henry, 14; released, 63; receives surrender of Poitou from Richard, _ib._; joins him in Sicily, 136; returns to England, 138; at Richard’s death, 328
El-Meshtoub, Seiffeddin, 163
Ely, William of Longchamps, bishop of, chancellor, 85, 113; negotiates for Richard’s release, 279; with Philip, 282; deprived of the Seal, 298; sent to Germany, 302-303
Emma, countess of Poitou, 5
Emmaus, _see_ Amwas
Emperors, _see_ Frederic, Henry
Excideuil, 43
Ezz-ed-Din, 230
Famagosta, Richard at, 146
“Far,” the, of Messina, 123
Fauvel, 146, 147, 187, 204
Felek-ed-Din, Emir, 236
Ferté-Bernard, La, meeting of kings at, 85
Figtrees, castle of, 225
Flanders, Baldwin VIII, count of, alliance with Richard, 313; besieges Arras, 315; arranges a conference between the kings, _ib._; supports Otto’s election to the empire, 319; takes St. Omer, _ib._
Flanders, Philip, count of, 68
Fleet, Richard’s, its adventures from England to Messina, 121-122; at Messina, 138-139; voyage to Rhodes, 139-141
Fontevraud, Henry II buried at, 91, 92; Richard buried at, 329
France, kings of, _see_ Louis, Philip
Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor, his death, 155
Fréteval, battle at, 296-297
Gascony, 4, 324
Genoa, Richard and Philip at, 121
Geoffrey, son of Henry II and Eleanor, 13, 14, 49-51, 62, 66
Germany, condition of, under Henry VI, 272-273
Gisors, conferences at, 14, 16, 79, 94; disputes about, 67; surrendered to Philip, 280; ceded to him, 305; encounter between Richard and Philip at, 320
Glanville, Ranulf de, 102-103, 120
Gorizia, Mainard, count of, 268-269
Gouletot, 322
Graçay, 94
Grandmont, Henry II at, 7, 44
“Griffons,” 125-126, 131
Gué Saint Rémi, 111
Guy of Lusignan, 15, 71; king of Jerusalem, 158; his character, 159; rivalry with Conrad of Montferrat, 160, 167; on the march to Arsuf, 182; goes to fetch troops from Acre, 194; Cyprus given to, 261
Haïfa, Crusaders at, 179
Hainaut, count of, 313
Hautefort, castle of, 40, 56
Heraclius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 158
Henry VI, emperor, his relations with Philip of France, 265, 273; with Leopold of Austria, 271-272; with Richard, 274, 283-4; sends Richard a crown, 301; excommunicated, 317; death, _ib._; Richard’s homage to, 336-338
Henry II, king of England, 2; at Limoges, 5, 6; war with Toulouse, 6; conference with Aquitanian nobles, 7; with Raymond, _ib._; relations with Louis VII of France, 6, 8, 9; relations with Aquitaine, 10; conference with Louis at Gisors, 14; goes to Poitiers, 16; recovers Saintes, _ib._; meets Louis at Gisors, _ib._; reconciled to Richard, 17; receives homage of his sons, _ib._; returns to England, 18; plans for his sons, 23; demands Aloysia’s dowry, 25; marches on Berry, 26; takes Châteauroux, etc., _ib._; subdues the Limousin, _ib._; meets Louis at Graçay, _ib._; buys La Marche, 27; joins Richard in Aquitaine, 44; meets Aquitanian rebels at Grandmont, _ib._; relations with his sons, 48, 49; besieges Limoges, 52-54; Limoges surrendered to, 55; restores Hautefort to Bertrand de Born, 56; proposes to transfer Aquitaine to John, 56-58, 62; does homage to Philip, 61; summons his sons to England, _ib._; sends Geoffrey to Normandy, 63; releases Eleanor, _ib._; changes in his treatment of Richard, 65; relations with Philip Augustus, 65-69; schemes for John, 69; takes the Cross, 72; dispute with Richard about his Crusade, 73; war with Philip, 78; meets Philip at Gisors, 79; at Châtillon, 80; truce with Philip, 83; meets him at La Ferté, 85, 86; last struggle, 86; submission at Colombières, 87; last meeting with Richard, 90; death, _ib._; burial, 91-92
Henry, son of Henry II, his homage to Louis in 1169, 9; conspires against his father, 12, 13; goes to England with him, 18; returns to Normandy, 19; joins Richard, 20; takes Châteauroux, 22; in Aquitaine, 44, 45; joins league against Richard, 46, 48; relations with Richard, 49, 50; with Aquitaine, _ib._; at Limoges, 51; takes Angoulême, 53; repulsed from Limoges, 54; death, 55
Henry, count of Champagne, 155, 156, 216; chosen king of Jerusalem, 219; marries Isabel, 220; joins Richard at Darum, 224; goes to collect reinforcements, 231; rejoins Richard at Joppa, 252
Hodierna, Richard’s nurse, 2
Hubert, bishop of Salisbury, visits Richard in Germany, 279; archbishop of Canterbury, _ib._; his demands for the king refused in England, 307-308
Hugh, Saint, bishop of Lincoln, 308, 329
Interdict in Normandy, 309; raised, 311
Isaac Comnenus, tyrant of Cyprus, 141-144, 146-148
Isabel of Jerusalem, 158, 159, 218-220
Issoudun, 94, 304
Jerusalem, Heraclius, patriarch of, 158, 159
Jerusalem, kingdom of, claimants to, 158; settlement of their claims, 167
Jerusalem, kings of, _see_ Amalric, Baldwin, Conrad, Guy, Henry
Jerusalem, roads to, 189, 202
Jews, riot against, 97, 98
Joan, queen of Sicily, 124-125; disputes about her dowry, 130; her claims settled, 132; sails for Acre with Berengaria, 139; their adventures at sea, 141-142; proposal for her marriage with Safadin, 197; second marriage, 314
John of Anagni, legate in France, 85-86
John “Lackland,” Henry’s plans for, 58, 69, 70; marches into Aquitaine, 62; proposal for his marriage with Aloysia, 86; relations with Richard, 93, 94; Richard’s grants to, 102, 104-105; meeting with Rees of South Wales, 106; marriage, 104, 107; plots with Philip, 277; submits to Richard, 294
Joppa, struggle for, 247-255
Karakoush, 162-163
Kuweilfeh, 236
Lacroma, 266-267
Latroun, _see_ Natroun
Leicester, Robert, earl of, captured by Philip, 296
Lieu-Dieu, 116
Limasol, 141-146
Limoges, Aimar V, viscount of, defeated by Richard, 20; goes on pilgrimage, 38; wars with Richard, 40, 41, 44; joins young Henry, 51; surrenders to Henry II, 55; war with Richard, 61; claims treasure-trove at Châlus, 325
Limoges, rival jurisdictions at, 5, 6; Richard proclaimed duke at, 11; meeting of kings and nobles at, 11, 12; taken by Richard, 20, 28; settlement between Richard and rebels at, 44; its walls destroyed, _ib._; young Henry at, 51-52; besieged by Henry II and Richard, 52-54; surrendered, 55
“Lion Heart,” origin of the epithet, 34
“Lo Bar” (Lupicar), 60
Lomagne, Vézian, viscount of, 39
“Lombards” at Messina, 125-126, 131
London, Richard crowned at, 97; anti-Jewish riot in, 98
Louis VII of France, his relations with Henry II, 6, 8, 9; receives homage of Henry and his sons, 9; league with the sons, 13; meets Henry at Gisors, 14, 16; knights Richard, 15
Lusignan, family of, 8 note 2
Lusignan, Geoffrey of, 15, 42-43, 74, 160, 191, 204
Lusignan, Guy of, _see_ Guy
Lusignan, Hugh of, 128
Lydda, 193
Malcolm IV, king of Scots, 107
Mandeville, William de, 79, 103, 112
Mans, Le, Henry’s flight from, 87, 88
Mantes attacked by Richard, 79
Marche, La, Adalbert, count of, 7, 27
Marche, La, county of, 4, 27, 43
Margarit, 127, 131
Markab, 148
Marshal, William, 79, 88, 92
“Mategriffon,” 131, 134, 156
Mercadier, 61; takes Issoudun, 304; captures the count of Auvergne, _ib._; captures the bishop of Beauvais, 315; raids Abbeville, 322; attacked by French in time of truce, 323; with Richard at Châlus, 326; takes the castle, 327
Merle, 180, 181
Merlin’s prophecy, 1
Messina, English fleet reaches, 122; Philip arrives at, 123; “Far” of, _ib._; Richard arrives at, 124; Joan arrives at, 125; mixed population of, _ib._; hostility to the English, 125-126; taken by Richard, 127-128; treaty of, 137-138, 276 note; Richard’s departure from, 139; Emperor Henry VI dies at, 317
Mileto, Richard’s adventure at, 123
Mirabel, 203, 204
Montferrat, Conrad of, _see_ Conrad
Montferrat, William of, 158
Montjoie, 233, 243
Montlouis, treaty of, 17
Montmirail, conference of kings at, 9
Morocco, Emperor of, invades Spain, 302
Mortain, county of, granted to John, 104
Natroun, 195, 206, 232
Navarre, kings of, _see_ Sancho
Neckam, Alexander, Richard’s foster-brother, 2
Nonancourt surrendered to Richard, 307
Normandy, interdict in, 309; raised, 311; scutage of, 299
Nottingham, siege of, 287-288; council at, 289
“Oc e No,” nickname of Richard, 34 note 6
Oxford, Richard born at, 2
Palestine, condition in 1190, 152-153
“Peace-makers,” 60
Périgord, Elias, count of, 43, 44, 297
Périgueux, 44
Peter, Cardinal, legate in France, 25, 323
Philip Augustus, king of France, receives homage of count of Angoulême, 45; sends Routiers into Aquitaine, 53; receives homage of Henry II, 61; demands homage of Richard, 67; besieges Châteauroux, 67, 68; truce with Henry, 70; demands Gisors, 72; takes the Cross, _ib._; intervenes in quarrel of Richard and Raymond of Toulouse, 76, 77; takes Châteauroux, 77; overruns Berry and Auvergne, 78; burns Trou, _ib._; meets Henry, 79-81; quarrel with Richard at Châtillon, 80; truce with Henry, 83; meets him at La Ferté, 85-86; captures Tours, 89; treaty with Richard, 94-95; meets him at Vézelay, 117; crosses the Rhône, 119; goes to Genoa, 121; reaches Messina, 123; conduct there, 127-128, 131, 136-137; relations with Tancred, 137; treaty with Richard, 137-138; sails for Acre, 138; at Acre, 145, 155-157; disputes with Richard, 161, 165, 167; goes home, 168; relations with the Emperor, 273; attempt on Normandy during Richard’s captivity, 276, 277; conquers the Vexin, etc., 280; negotiates with Henry VI, _ib._; with Richard, 282-283; his offers to Henry VI, 283-284; besieges Verneuil, 294; Vaudreuil, _ib._; takes Fontaines, 295; captures Earl of Leicester, 296; defeated at Fréteval, _ib._; truce with Richard, 298; negotiates with him, 302-303; burns Dieppe, 304; takes Issoudun, and meets with Richard there, _ib._; treaty with Richard, 305; besieges Aumale, 306; his allies, 313; recovers Dangu, 315; relieves Arras, _ib._; makes terms with Flanders, _ib._; meets Richard at Les Andelys, 315-316; boast about Château-Gaillard, 316; alliance with Philip of Suabia, 319; burns Evreux, 322; builds Gouletot, _ib._; negotiates for peace, _ib._; meets Richard again, 323; makes truce for five years, 323; breaks it, 324
Pilgrims’ Castle, 179
Pin, Jordan du, 127, 131
Pipewell, council at, 106
Poitiers, Richard at, 11, 324
Poitiers, William of, chaplain of Richard, 227
Poitou, county of, 4, 9; granted to Otto of Saxony, 314; use of the name in Richard’s later years, 324
Poitou, Otto, count of, _see_ Saxony
Pons besieged by Richard, 29; surrendered, 31
Ponthieu, county of, 313
Préaux, William des, 196, 261
Provence, kingdom of, 283
Quercy conquered by Henry II, 6; by Richard, 66; restored to Toulouse, 314
Ragusa, Richard at, 266-267
Ramlah, 189, 193, 206-207
Rancogne, Geoffrey of, 8, 15, 29, 31, 74
Raymond “Brunus or Brenuus,” 51, 60
Reggio, 138
Rhodes, Richard at, 141
Richard the Lion Heart born, 2; first betrothal, 6; goes to Normandy, 7; betrothed to Aloysia of France, 8, 9; does homage to Louis for Poitou and Aquitaine, 9; invested as duke at Poitiers and at Limoges, 11; receives homage of Raymond of Toulouse, 12; joins his rebel brothers, 13; knighted by Louis VII, 15; returns to Aquitaine, _ib._; dealings with La Rochelle, 16; seizes Saintes, _ib._; expelled by Henry, _ib._; submits to his father, 17; does homage to him, _ib._; deprived of his territories, 17, 18; takes Castillon-sur-Agen, 19; goes to England, _ib._; returns to Aquitaine, _ib._; subdues rebels in Poitou, defeats Brabantines at St. Maigrin, takes Aixe and Limoges, and captures the count of Angoulême, 20; keeps Christmas (1176) at Bordeaux, 21; successes in Gascony, _ib._; takes castle at Limoges from the viscount, 28; marches on Gascony, _ib._; dealings with Bigorre, 29; keeps Christmas (1178) at Saintes, _ib._; besieges Pons, _ib._; his successes in Angoumois, _ib._; siege of Taillebourg, 29-31; goes to England, 31; reinstated as count of Poitou, _ib._; returns, _ib._; relations with people of Aquitaine, 32; person and character, 33-37; oaths, 34 note 6; subdues Lomagne, 39; claims wardship of Angoulême, _ib._; strife with Aimar of Limoges, 40; conspiracy against, 42; takes Puy-St.-Front, 43; takes Excideuil, 44; builds a castle at Clairvaux, 45-46; in Normandy, 47, 48; relations with Bertrand de Born, 47; surrenders Clairvaux, 48; relations with his father, 49; with his brothers, 49, 50; quarrel with young Henry, 50; routs rebels in the Limousin, 51; joins Henry at siege of Limoges, 54; drives Routiers out of Angoumois and Saintonge, _ib._; refuses to give up Aquitaine to John, 58-60, 62; holds court at Talmont, 60; attachment to Berengaria of Navarre, 62; returns to Aquitaine and attacks Geoffrey, 63; surrenders Poitou to Eleanor, _ib._; betrothed to the emperor’s daughter, 64; to Berengaria, _ib._; to Aloysia again, 65; again sent to Aquitaine, _ib._; invades Toulouse and conquers Quercy, 66; negotiations with Philip at Châteauroux, 68, 69; visits Philip at Paris, 70; does homage again to Henry, 71; takes the Cross, _ib._; with Henry at Le Mans, 72; dispute with his father about the Crusade, 73; quells revolt in Aquitaine, 74; quarrels with Raymond of Toulouse, 75, 77; makes attempt on Châteauroux, 78; takes Les Roches, _ib._; attacks Mantes, 79; captures William des Barres, _ib._; quarrel with Philip at Châtillon, 80; betrothal to Aloysia renewed, 82; in pursuit of Henry from Le Mans, 88; encounter with William the Marshal, _ib._; besieges Tours with Philip, 89; last meeting with Henry, 90; at Henry’s funeral, 91, 92; sends the Marshal to England, 92; confirms Henry’s grants, _ib._, 93; first acts as king, _ib._; relations with John, 93-94; invested as duke of Normandy, 94; meets Philip, _ib._; treaty with him, _ib._, 95; returns to England, 95; received at Winchester, _ib._; first proclamation, _ib._, 96; welcomed in London, 96; crowned, 97; tries to protect Jews, 98; his financial difficulties, _ib._, 99; preparations for Crusade, 99-105; holds council at Pipewell, 106; dealings with Wales, _ib._; agrees to meet Philip at Vézelay, _ib._; goes to S. Edmund’s, 107; to Canterbury, _ib._; dealings with Scotland, 109-111; goes to Normandy, 111; meets Philip, _ib._; goes to Aquitaine, 112; appoints justiciar, 112-113; fleet, 113-115; founds abbey at Talmont, 115-116; at Gourfaille, 116; takes Chis, _ib._; receives scrip and staff at Tours, 117; meets Philip at Vézelay, 117, 118; crosses the Rhône, 119, 120; goes to Marseille, 120; to Genoa, 121; coasting voyage to Naples, 121-122; adventure at Mileto, 123; crosses the “Far,” _ib._; enters Messina, 124; seizes the “Griffons’ Minster,” 126; captures Messina, 127-128; dispute with Philip, 129, 130; negotiations with Tancred, 130-133; builds “Mategriffon,” 131; penance, 134; quarrel with William des Barres, 135, 138; relations with Tancred, 137; engagement to Aloysia finally broken off, _ib._; treaty with Philip, 137-138; meets Eleanor and Berengaria at Reggio, 138; sails from Messina, 140; voyage to Rhodes, 140-141; reaches Limasol, 142-143; dealings with Isaac Comnenos, 143; takes Limasol, 143-145; marriage, 145; meeting with Isaac, 146; takes Nicosia, 147; receives Isaac’s surrender, 147-148; sails for Palestine, 149; encounter with a Turkish ship, 149-150; refused admittance to Tyre, 151; at Acre, 155-157; disputes with Philip, 161, 165, 167; quarrel with duke of Austria, 166, 330-331; leads the host towards Ascalon, 177-178; advance to Haïfa, 179; reconciled with William des Barres, _ib._; advance to Caesarea, 180-181; to the “Dead River,” 182; wounded, 183; parley with Safadin, 184; victory at Arsuf, 185-188; goes to Joppa, 189; negotiations with Safadin, 191; restores Joppa, 191-192; his letters on the Crusade, 193, 194; goes to Acre, 195; saved from capture by William des Préaux, 195; returns to Joppa, 196; negotiations with Safadin, _ib._; with Saladin, _ib._, 197, 199, 200; advances to Casal of the Plains, 198; conference with Safadin, 199; encampment between Ramlah and Lydda, 201; goes to Natroun, 203; advance to Beit Nuba, 204-205; returns to Ramlah, 206-207; goes to Ibelin, 207-208; to Ascalon, 208; to Darum, 209; releases Christian prisoners, 210; negotiates with Conrad, _ib._; quarrel with Burgundy, 211; goes to Acre, _ib._; meets Conrad, 212; reconciled to Burgundy, _ib._; reopens negotiations with Saladin, 212-213; difficulties with the French, 213; holds court at Ascalon, 214; goes again to Darum, 215; plans for returning to England, _ib._; charged with Conrad’s death, 217; opinion on marriage of Isabel and Henry, 219; excursions round Ascalon, 220; takes Blanchegarde, _ib._, 221; adventure at Furbia, 221; takes Darum, 222-224; goes to the Canebrake of Starlings, 225; goes towards Ibelin, 226, 227; his perplexities, _ib._; returns to Ascalon, 229; decides to advance on Jerusalem, _ib._; goes again to Blanchegarde, 231; to Natroun, Castle Arnold, and Beit Nuba, 232; excursions, etc., from Beit Nuba, 233; capture of caravan from Egypt, 235-238; quarrel with Burgundy, 241; receives relics of the Cross, 242-243; story of his refusal to look at Jerusalem, 243, 244; returns to Ramlah, 244; reopens negotiations, 245; goes to Joppa and Acre, _ib._; plans attack on Beyrout, 246; recovers Joppa from Saladin, 248-250; negotiates with Saladin through Abou Bekr, 251-257; second recovery of Joppa, 253-255; negotiations through Bedr-ed-Din, 257, 258; final agreement with Saladin, 259-260; refuses to visit Jerusalem, 260-261; goes back to Haïfa, 261; ransoms William des Préaux, _ib._; gives Cyprus to Guy, _ib._; sails for Europe, 262; Moslems’ impression of him, _ib._; homeward voyage, 264-268; adventures in Italy, etc., 268-269; captured in Austria, 270; transferred to the emperor, 273; negotiations for his release, 274-276; confined at Triffels, 274; behaviour in captivity, 277; song written in prison, 278; writes to England about ransom, 279-280; imprisoned at Worms, 281; reconciles Henry with the German magnates, _ib._; agreement with Henry, _ib._, 282; negotiates with Philip, 282-283; terms of his release, 284; homage to the emperor, _ib._, 336-338; journey home, 285-286; goes to Canterbury, 287; to London, _ib._; to S. Edmund’s, _ib._; Nottingham surrendered to him, 288; holds a council at Nottingham, 289; meets William of Scotland at Southwell, _ib._; agreement with him, 290, 292; “second coronation,” or crown-wearing, 290-291; goes to Normandy, 292-293; pardons John, 294; recovers Verneuil, Loches, etc., 294-295; victory at Fréteval, 296-297; recovers control of Aquitaine, 297-298; withdraws the Seal from William of Ely, 298; truce with France, _ib._, 299; financial measures, 299; does penance, 300; attempt to assassinate him, 301; meets Philip, 302, 304; relations with Henry VI, 303; treaty with Philip, 305; sends to England for troops, _ib._; conquers Britanny, 306; builds castle at Porte-Joie, _ib._; wounded at Gaillon, 307; his demands refused in England, 307-308; dispute with Archbishop Walter about Andely, 309-311; continental alliances, 313; grants Poitou to Otto of Saxony, 314; agreement with count of Toulouse, _ib._; raids Ponthieu, _ib._; successes in Auvergne, 315; conference with Philip at “the Isle,” 315, 316; truce with Philip, 316; his boast about Château-Gaillard, _ib._; agreement with Walter, 316-317; invited to election of emperor, 317; sends representatives, 318; nominated for election, _ib._; his allies, 319; encounter with Philip at Gisors, 320; his want of money, 321; change of seal, _ib._; builds Boutavant, 322; negotiates with Philip, _ib._; meets him again, 323; makes truce for five years, _ib._; makes treaty of peace, _ib._, 324; claims treasure-trove at Châlus, 325; besieges Châlus, _ib._; wounded, 326; sends for his mother, 327; testamentary arrangements, 327-328; interview with his slayer, 328; death and burial, 329
Rochelle, La, Richard’s dealings with, 16
Roches, Les, taken by Richard, 78
Rouen, Walter, archbishop of, 133, 136, 305, 309, 311
“Round Cistern,” the, 236-237
Routiers, 51, 53, 60, 61; _see_ Brabantines
Safadin, 157, 184, 191, 196-197, 199, 256
St. Edmund’s, Richard at, 107
St. Elias, monastery of, 242
St. Maigrin, Richard defeats Brabantines at, 20
St. Pierre de Cize, Richard at, 21
Saint-Pol, count of, 203
Saintes seized by Richard, 16; retaken by Henry, _ib._
Saladin, extent of his dominions, 152-154; relations with Richard, 157; attitude on surrender of Acre, 163-171; defeat at Arsuf, 185-188; goes to Ramlah, 189; razes Ascalon, 190; razes citadel of Ramlah, 193; negotiations with Conrad, 194-195; goes to Natroun, 195; at Ramlah again, 198; negotiations with Richard and Conrad, 199, 200; at Natroun, 201; retires to Jerusalem, _ib._; receives reinforcements, 230; prepares for siege of Jerusalem, 238-240; his difficulties, 244; renews negotiations, 245; takes Joppa, 247-248; loses it, 250; regains it, 252; again driven out, 253-255; final agreement with Richard, 259, 260
Saladin tithe, 72
Salisbury, Herbert, bishop of, 308
Salisbury, Hubert Walter, bishop of, _see_ Hubert
Salisbury, Patrick, earl of, 8, 9
Sancho VI, king of Navarre, 11, 12 note 1, 136
Sancho VII, king of Navarre, 295, 297-298
Sancho of Sérannes, 53, 60
Saxony, Henry the Lion, duke of, 265, 273, 282
Saxony, Henry the younger of, 318-319
Saxony, Matilda, duchess of, 47
Saxony, Otto of, 318-319, 324
Scotland, Henry II’s dealings with, 107-108; Richard’s, 109-111; kings of, _see_ Malcolm, William
Seal, the Great, 298; Richard’s change of, 338-339
Seilhac, Robert of, 8
Seilun, Peter, 75
Sibyl, queen of Jerusalem, 158, 159
Sicily, Constance of, _see_ Constance
Sicily, Joan, queen of, _see_ Joan
Sicily, kings of, _see_ Tancred, William
Sidon, Reginald of, 199
Spain invaded by Moors, 302
Stephen, seneschal of Anjou, 93
Suabia, Philip of, 319
Taillebourg, siege of, 29-31
Talmont, 60, 115-116
Tancred, king of Sicily, 124, 130-133, 137
Tell-Ayadiyeh, 163
Thouars, viscount of, 7
Toron, Humphrey of, 159, 184, 213
Torpenay, Luke, abbot of, 329
Toulouse, county of, invaded by Richard, 66
Toulouse, Raymond V, count of, 6, 7, 11, 12, 55, 66, 75-77
Toulouse, Raymond VI, count of, 314
Tournaments, licensed by Richard, 299
Tours taken by Philip and Richard, 89; Richard receives scrip and staff at, 117
Trenchemer, Alan, 280
Trou burnt by Philip Augustus, 78
Turnham, Robert of, 148, 280
Turnham, Stephen of, 93, 142
Tyre, 151-153, 159
Valeria, Saint, 11
Vaudreuil, 294, 302
Vendôme, Burchard, count of, 78
Verneuil besieged by Philip, 294; meeting of kings at, 303
Vexin, the, disputes about, 23; the Norman, ceded to France, 305
Vézelay, Richard and Philip at, 118
Vienna, Richard captured near, 270
Vigeois, Geoffrey of, 37
Wales, scutage of, 106
Wales, South, Rees, prince of, 106
William the Lion, king of Scots, relations with Henry II, 108; with Richard, 109-111, 289-290, 292
William, king of Sicily, 121, 124
Worms, agreement of Henry VI and Richard at, 281-282
York, Geoffrey, archbishop of, 103, 107, 113
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] R. Diceto, ii. 67, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe), iii. 3. Both the prophet and his commentator ignore the fact that what they call Eleanor’s “third nesting” was really her sixth, as she had already had, besides her two elder sons, two daughters by her first marriage and one by her second.
[2] Rog. Howden, iii. 215.
[3] _Chron. Anon._ in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._ xii. 121. She had joined him before the end of August; _Chron. de Bello_, 76.
[4] R. Torigni, a. 1157; Pipe Roll 3 Hen. II, 107.
[5] R. Torigni, a. 1157.
[6] W. Newburgh, lib. ii. c. 4.
[7] Place from R. Diceto, i. 302; day from _Chron. S. Albini Andeg._, a. 1157.
[8] “MS. in Lord Arundel’s collection,” as quoted by James, Collections, vii. 34 (Bodl.); Stubbs, preface to R. Howden, iii., xviii. note 2.
[9] In 1220 Henry III granted to another person “septem libratas redditûs in Chippenham quas Hodierna nutrix domini Regis Ricardi avunculi nostri habuit,” _Close Rolls_, ii. 416 b. That the grant to Hodierna was made by Richard may be inferred from there being no trace of the payment in the Pipe Rolls of his father’s reign. Stubbs notes that “this could not have been the whole of her property, for her land in 30 Hen. III” [1246-7], “was talliaged at 40_s._”; also that “the parish of Knoyle Hodierne in Wiltshire still preserves her name.” Pref. to R. Howd. iii., xviii. note 2.
[10] R. Diceto, i. 293.
[11] See especially _Chron. S. Maxent._, a. 1060 and 1110, and _Hist. Pont. et Com. Engolism._, Labbe, _Thesaurus_, ii. 268 (a. 1070-1101).
[12] Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, _Thes._, ii. 304. This was in 1136-7. M. Richard (_Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 51) thinks Emma was only betrothed, not married, to the duke. His arguments are not strong enough to convince me against the distinct statement of Geoffrey of Vigeois.
[13] “Lemovicæ comes” (_sic_) “habet feudum de abbate S. Martialis castellum de Petra Buffiera et turrim de castello quod est super Charnix, Lemovicense castrum, vicariam de turre, Bernardii castellum de Cambono S. Valeriæ. Pro his omnibus debent hominium facere abbatibus cunctis omnes vicecomites qui feudum istud tenuerunt”—Geoffrey, the writer, had twice seen it performed—“... Abbas tamen dominium totius castri Lemovicini habere debet, vicecomes vicariam tantum.... Burgenses vero argenti pondere fulti vicecomiti vix obtemperant, quando minus monachis” Geoff. Vigeois, 333. For the significance of “castrum Lemovicense,” see the next footnote.
[14] “Lite mota inter cives et hospites, Dux irritatus est; tunc muros castri, qui non multo tempore fuerunt constructi, funditus evertit, pontemque disrupit.... Procurationem noluit Albertus Abbas in urbem facere Duci, dicens non debere extra septa reddere castri.” Geoff. Vigeois, 308. Limoges in those days, and long after, was a sort of double town of which one part, comprising the cathedral church and its precincts and seemingly called the “city,” belonged to the bishop, and the other part to the abbot of S. Martial’s, under homage to whom it was governed by the viscount. Each part had its own enclosure. There was no castle in the ordinary sense of that word; but the abbot’s part, which was the more populous and important part of the town, seems to have taken the title of _castrum_. The case was somewhat like that of the city of Tours and the _Castrum S. Martini_, or Châteauneuf.
[15] Geoff. Vigeois, 308-10.
[16] R. Torigni, a. 1159.
[17] Treaty in Lyttelton, _Henry II_, iv. 174.
[18] “Ad corredium Ricardi filii Regis £10 6_s._ 8_d._ per breve Regis,” Pipe Roll 9 Hen. II (1162-3) 71. Cf. an entry, _ib._, 72; “in porcis et ovis et minutis rebus contra festum filii Regis 100_s._” Henry was in London that year in the first week of March (Eyton, _Itin._ Hen. II, 59), and again on October 1 (_Mater. for Hist. Becket_, iv. 201). It is possible that the royal family may have been there also in September, and that the “festum filii Regis” may have been Richard’s birthday; but it is perhaps more likely to have been that of young Henry, February 28.
[19] R. Torigni, a. 1165.
[20] Gerv. Cant., i. 205.
[21] _Mater. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. ccliii., vi. 74.
[22] R. Torigni, a. 1167. Cf. _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. cclxxvii., vi. 131.
[23] R. Torigni, _l.c._ Cf. _Chronn. S. Albini_ and _S. Sergii_, a. 1166.
[24] R. Torigni, _l.c._
[25] Geoff. Vigeois, 318; R. Torigni, a. 1168; _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456.
[26] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, _l.c._
[27] “Robertus de Silli,” _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456; “Robertus de Selit,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318; “Robertus et frater ejus de Silleio,” R. Torigni, a. 1167. The name appears as “de Silliaco” in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vii. 165, 178, 247, 606, 610, 616. It cannot be Sillé in Maine as I suggested in _Angevin Kings_, ii. 137; it can hardly be anything else than Seilhac.
[28] R. Torigni, _l.c._, names “Haimericus de Lizennoio”; the writer of Ep. 434 in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456, names “Gaufridus de Lezinniaco” and “Haimericus de Rancone.” There seems to be no other trace of an Aimeric de Rancogne, if indeed Rancogne be the place intended here and not Rancon in La Marche, as to the ownership of which I can discover nothing. There was an Aimeric de Lusignan, and also a Geoffrey de Lusignan, and there was furthermore a Geoffrey de Rancogne of whom we shall hear again. To me it seems most probable that the Lusignan here referred to was Aimeric, and that his Christian name has (owing to a confusion between him and his brother) been transposed with that of the lord of Rancogne.
[29] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[30] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456.
[31] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[32] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 409.
[33] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 409.
[34] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[35] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 1615-52. According to R. Torigni, _l.c._, Patrick was killed “circa octavas Paschae,” _i. e._ April 7, the very day of the conference.
[36] “Rex Henricus senior filio Richardo ex voluntate matris Aquitanorum tradidit Ducatum.” Geoff. Vigeois, 318.
[37] Cf. John of Salisbury’s letter in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 506-7, R. Torigni, a. 1169, and Gerv. Cant., i. 208.
[38] R. Torigni, a. 1169.
[39] Geoff. Vigeois, 318. Bernard Itier, ed. Duplès-Agier, 58.
[40] “Novusque dux ab omnibus proclamatur,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318-19. Geoffrey does not give the year explicitly, but he does so implicitly by saying that Raymond of Toulouse did homage to Richard “anno sequenti.” S. Valeria’s body was at S. Martial’s abbey at Limoges; _ib._, 285. According to Geoffrey and the Chronicle of S. Martial’s (ed. Duplès-Agier), 209, she was the protomartyr not only of Aquitaine but of Gaul.
[41] _Gesta Hen._, i. 35-6. The presence of Eleanor and the date of the homage—“Dominica qua cantatur Invocavit Me,” _i. e._ February 25—are mentioned only by Geoff. Vigeois, 319, who adds: “Feria quarta, alias sexta, heroes qui per dies septem concilium celebravere Lemovica discedunt ab urbe”; _i. e._ the kings and counts were at Limoges either from Thursday, February 22, to Wednesday, 28, or from Saturday, February 24, to Friday, March 2. This assembly of a week’s duration at Limoges is clearly to be identified with the one described by the local chronicler, Bernard Itier, in a very corrupt passage which his latest editor, M. Duplès-Agier, has printed (p. 58) from the much mutilated MS. with conjectural emendations, thus: “Anno gracie MCLXXII ... [Alienor Regina] et filio Ricardo et com ... [et regibus de] Arragonia et de Navarra [venerunt] ... Lemovicas et per viii dies in ca[stro Lemovicensi moram] fecerunt.” February 1173 in our reckoning would be February 1172 in Bernard’s reckoning, as in the kingdom of France the year began at Easter. I think that for “Alienor Regina” we should substitute “Rex cum Regina,” and supply “[ite Tolosæ]” after “com.” What the king of Navarre—Sancho VI, father of Berengaria whom Richard ultimately married—had come for, there is nothing to show. Count Gerard of Vienne, whom R. Diceto (i. 353) adds to the list of those present, was a Provençal subfeudatary of Raymond of Toulouse, and so may have been concerned in Raymond’s dispute with Alfonso. The statement of R. Diceto (i. 353-4) that “quia Ricardus Dux Aquitaniæ, cui facturus esset homagium comes Sancti Ægidii, presens non erat, usque ad octavas Pentecostes negotii complementum dilationem accepit,” is clearly erroneous.
[42] _Gesta Hen._, i. 41-2. R. Diceto, i. 355.
[43] Geoff. Vigeois, 319.
[44] _Gesta Hen._, i. 42.
[45] _Ib._, 44.
[46] W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 27.
[47] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.
[48] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.
[49] _Gesta_, i. 49; but R. Torigni, a. 1173, mentions only young Henry and the counts of Flanders and Boulogne.
[50] Cf. _Gesta_, _l.c._; R. Diceto, i. 373, etc.
[51] R. Howden, ii. 52.
[52] _Gesta_, i. 59. Cf. R. Howden, ii. 53.
[53] _Gesta_, i. 63.
[54] _Ib._, 46-7.
[55] Geoff. Vigeois, 320-3.
[56] Richard, _Ctes. de Poitou_, ii. 173, from _Archives historiques de la Gironde_, i. 388.
[57] Richard the Poitevin, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xii. 420, 421, a passage which M. Richard, _Ctes._, ii. 174, note 2, says relates to 1173-4, not 1186-8 as formerly supposed.
[58] R. Diceto, i. 380. Cf. _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1174.
[59] _Gesta_, 71.
[60] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, lib. iii. dist. 8 (Anglia Christiana Soc. edition, 106).
[61] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 76, and R. Howd., ii. 66.
[62] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[63] R. Howd., ii. 67.
[64] _Gesta_, i. 77-9.
[65] See _Angevin Kings_, ii. 165, note 7.
[66] R. Diceto, i. 398.
[67] _Ib._ and R. Howd., ii. 71.
[68] _Gesta_, i. 78.
[69] See this clause in the treaty, _ib._, 77.
[70] _Ib._, 82-4.
[71] _Gesta_, i. 101. The place is there called “Castellum super Agiens.” M. Richard, _Ctes. de Poitou_, ii. 183, calls it “le château du Puy de Castillon”; cf. _ib._, 134, “Castillon sur Agen, place extrêmement forte,” from R. Torigni, a. 1161, “Castellionem super urbem Agennum, castrum scilicet natura et artificio munitum,” taken by Henry after a week’s siege in 1161. It seems to be identical with Grand-Castel, on the river, a little above Agen.
[72] _Gesta_, i. 114.
[73] _Ib._, 115.
[74] “In liberatione esnecce quando rex junior transfretavit £7 10_s._ per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que transfretaverunt cum eo ... £7 15_s._ per breve regis. Et item in passagio esnecce quando Ricardus filius regis transfretavit vii_l._ and x_s._ per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que transfretaverunt cum eo vi_l._ per breve regis.”—Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II (1175-6), 199.
[75] R. Diceto, i. 407.
[76] _Gesta_, i. 121. I am uncertain whether “Montigernac” is meant for Montignac, or Jarnac, or for both; very likely the latter, as the two places are close together, and the writer not being familiar with the country may easily have run two names into one.
[77] Cf. _Gesta_, 120, 121, with R. Diceto, i. 414.
[78] _Gesta_, i. 131-2. The writer’s chronology is obviously confused, but the closing date of the series may be correct.
[79] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[80] _Gesta_, i. 127.
[81] _Ib._, 195-6.
[82] _Ib._, 131, 132.
[83] _Ib._, 132.
[84] _Ib._, 168.
[85] Alex. III Ep. in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xv. 954, 955. Cf. _Gesta_, i. 180, 181.
[86] _Gesta_, i. 168.
[87] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 180-1 with the Pope’s letter, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xv. 954-5.
[88] _Gesta_, i. 181, 182.
[89] _Ib._, 190, 191; place from R. Diceto, i. 422.
[90] R. Howden, ii. 143.
[91] _Gesta_, i. 191-2; place and date from R. Diceto, i. 422.
[92] _Gesta_, i. 195.
[93] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[94] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 195-7, R. Diceto, i. 425, and R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[95] _Gesta_, i. 196.
[96] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[97] I infer this from the fact that neither she nor her husband, Guy of Comborn, seem ever to have put forth any claim to the county. Geoff. Vigeois, 324, speaks as if she were still living at the time of its sale. She may have died soon after, and as she was childless (_ib._, and Chron. MS. printed in Duplès-Agier, _Chron. de Limoges_, 188), whatever rights she might have claimed would die with her.
[98] _Gesta_, i. 197; R. Howden, ii. 147-8; and cf. Geoff. Vigeois, 324, and _Chron. S. Mart. Limoges_, 188, which gives the date October 7, but Adalbert’s own charter (_Gesta_ and R. Howd., _ll.cc._) says “mense Decembri.” G. Vigeois gives the sum paid as 5000 marks; the _Chron. S. Mart._, 189, R. Torigni a. 1177, and R. Diceto, i. 425, make it 6000 marks of silver, and R. Torigni adds “terram ... valentem, ut idem rex dixit, viginti millia marcas argenti.” The _Gesta_ and R. Howden both insert a copy of Adalbert’s charter, but the writer of the former must have copied the figures wrongly, for he makes the sum only fifteen pounds Angevin; in Roger’s version it is 15,000 pounds Angevin. Both versions add twenty mules and twenty palfreys.
[99] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[100] He was with his father and brothers at Angers at Christmas, 1177; R. Torigni, _ad ann._
[101] “Cum magno exercitu _in Pictaviam_ profectus,” says our authority, _Gesta_, i. 212; but clearly he must mean either “in Gasconiam” or “ex Pictavia.”
[102] _Gesta_, i. 212, 213.
[103] _Ib._, 212.
[104] R. Diceto, i. 431, 432. The _Gesta_, i. 212, say the siege began on May 3 and lasted only three days.
[105] _Gesta_, _l.c._; cf. R. Torigni, a. 1179, who evidently did not know that Pons belonged to Geoffrey.
[106] R. Diceto, i. 432; _Gesta_, i. 213.
[107] R. Torigni, a. 1179.
[108] R. Diceto, i. 432.
[109] “Ricardo comiti Pictaviae l.m.,” Pipe Roll 25 Hen. II (1178-9), 101. “In passagio esneccae quando Ricardus comes Pictaviae transfretavit,” _ib._, p. 107.
[110] _Itin. Ric._, 144.
[111] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.
[112] _Itin._, _l.c._
[113] “Species digna imperio,” _ib._; “formae dignae imperio,” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, _l.c._
[114] _Itin._, _l.c._
[115] “Hic leo noster plusquam leo.” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.
[116] _Ib._
[117] An obvious instance is Richard’s great-grandfather, King Henry I, who was called “the Lion of Justice.” Two of Richard’s own contemporaries are known as Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and William the Lion, king of Scots; though in this last case the appellation was probably derived merely from the cognizance on his shield.
[118] Cf., _e. g._, _Coronement Loois_, l. 1807—“C’est Fierebrace qui cuer a de lion.”
[119] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” _Estoire de la Croisade_, l. 2310.
[120] Bertrand de Born in his sirventes often speaks of Richard by a nickname—“Oc e No,” “Yea and Nay.” Its use seems to be peculiar to Bertrand. Some modern writers have taken it as intended to imply that Richard was light of purpose, or of a wavering disposition. As Clédat points out (Bertran de Born, 101-2), such an explanation would be quite out of harmony not only with Richard’s real character as displayed in his actions from the very outset of his rule in Aquitaine, but also with every other indication of Bertran’s opinion of him. We might almost more reasonably conjecture that although when Richard did swear he used some very extraordinary oaths (“Per gorgiam Dei,” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._ dist. iii. c. 25, on which Gerald comments “quoniam his et similibus sacramentibus uti solet”; “Par les gambes Dieu,” _Hist. G. le Mar._ ll. 8839, 9367), his usual practice was to “swear not at all,” but so to act that a simple statement from him of his will and purpose, “yea” or “nay,” was recognized as being no less positive and final than if he had confirmed it with an oath.
[121] Cf. the character given by a Flemish chronicler, “Richard ... ke otre toz les boins estoit preus e vaillans.” _Hist. des Ducs_, 84.
[122] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.
[123] _Ib._
[124] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8. Cf. Bertrand de Born, “Ar ve la coindeta sazos,” ll. 33-5:
Bom sap l’usatge qu’a’l leos Qu’a re venenda non es maus, Mas contra orgolh es orgolhos.—
where the context shows that the “lion” stands for Richard.
[125] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, _l.c._
[126] _Ib._; Gerv. Cant. i. 303; and cf. R. Diceto, ii. 19—“Pictaviensibus ... quos Ricardus indebitis vexationibus et violenta dominatione premebat.”
[127] His brutal treatment of his Breton and “Basque” prisoners in 1183 is a wholly different matter. Those prisoners were not his own subjects; they were foreign invaders; the charge of cruelty mentioned above had no reference to them. Moreover, even their fate does not necessarily indicate that Richard was of a specially cruel disposition, for that fate does not appear to have outraged the public opinion of their day, at any rate in Aquitaine.
[128] _Gesta_, i. 292.
[129] Geoff. Vigeois, 317. It is a pity that Geoffrey’s rime, “Richardus, qui ad probitatis opera nunquam exstitit tardus,” cannot be reproduced in an English translation; and also that “prowess” in its modern use conveys such an imperfect idea of the medieval _probitas_. The rime may be unintentional; but it is far more likely to be derived from some vernacular couplet current at the time “... En Richartz, Qu’ad obras de proesa ja n’estet tartz,” or something similar.
[130] R. Torigni, a. 1179. See the various names applied to these “malignants,” “whose teeth and arms had nearly devoured Aquitaine,” in Geoff. Vigeois, 328, 334.
[131] _Ib._, 325; for date see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.
[132] See B. de Born’s _sirventes_, “Ges no me desconort,” ll. 22-3, where he speaks of “the three counts of Angoulême”—“li trei comte fat Engolmesi.”
[133] Geoff. Vigeois, 326.
[134] In p. 327 Geoffrey says in reference to a period which from the context seems to be about the end of January 1181: “Tunc genus inimicitiarum Richardi et Alienoris in speciem amicitiae vertitur.” As there is no indication elsewhere of “unfriendliness” between Richard and his mother, nor of anything which might have given rise to it, nor of anything likely to produce a change in their feelings towards each other at this time; and as, moreover, their intercommunications must for the past seven years have been extremely limited if not altogether non-existent, seeing that Eleanor had been throughout that time in confinement in England, I cannot but suspect that this passage is corrupt. Possibly “Alienoris” may be a transcriber’s mistake for “Ademari,” and the person really meant may be Aimar of Limoges.
[135] Geoff. Vigeois, 327.
[136] R. Diceto, ii. 9; cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 297.
[137] Geoff. Vigeois, 326; for the year see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.
[138] “Qui” (_i. e._ the Duke) “cum puella terram obtinere tentavit,” says G. Vigeois, 326. A statement made by some modern writers that Richard wanted to marry the girl and thus annex her county seems to be without authority.
[139] G. Vigeois, 326.
[140] Gerv. Cant. i. 303.
[141] Hautefort was in the diocese of Périgord, but in the viscounty of Limoges; cf. the two biographies of Bertrand de Born, Thomas, _B. de Born_, li., Stimming (ed. 1892), 51; the “contradiction” which Stimming (3) finds on this point exists only in his own imagination, and he is mistaken in branding as “false” the second biographer’s statement that Bertrand “fu de Lemozi,” for Bertrand himself speaks of “Nos Lemozi” in his sirventes “Eu chant,” l. 44, Thomas, 21, Stimming, 69.
[142] _Razo_ of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7; Stimming, 6-7.
[143] Provençal biography of B. de Born, No. I, Thomas, li.
[144] _Sirventes_, “Lo coms m’a mandat,” ll. 45, 46, Thomas, 6.
[145] See “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” ll. 9-14.
[146] Another Aimar, William, and Elias. It was the two former who tried to get possession of Angoulême in succession to their eldest brother Vulgrin (G. Vigeois, 326). Elias was still living in January-February 1183, when “Helias et Sector Ferri” are coupled together by G. Vigeois (332) as “Vulgrini defuncti comites Engolismensis fratres.” It is doubtful whether “Sector Ferri”—Taillefer, a surname used by all the counts of Angoulême at this period—here represents William or Aimar. Some modern writers date William’s death in 1181. He was at any rate still alive in June of that year; G. Vigeois (326) says definitely “_Guillermus_ et Ademarus defuncto inhiabant succedere fratri,” _i. e._ to succeed Vulgrin who died in June 1181, see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.
[147] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 35-8.
[148] “Tals me plevi sa fe No feses plait sens me,” _ib._ ll. 39-40. Obviously this “pledging of faith” could not apply to Bertrand alone. Nor was he the only one towards whom it was broken, as we shall see.
[149] Cf. “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 1-3, with “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 18-25.
[150] _Razo_ of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7. Bertrand himself mentions some of these lesser barons in “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 2, 9, 10.
[151] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 17-30.
[152] _Gesta_, i. 197.
[153] G. Vigeois, 324.
[154] He was there in February or March 1181, and again in May and on June 24, 1182; _ib._ 326, 330.
[155] “Pois Ventadorn,” l. 4.
[156] G. Vigeois, 330, 331.
[157] _Ib._, 320.
[158] “Quod protinus adimpletur,” says G. Vigeois, 326.
[159] See the last six lines of “Pois Ventadorn,” with the note of M. Thomas, _B. de Born_, 15. I venture to think M. Thomas is mistaken in assuming that “Talhafer” represents either Elias or William. We know from John’s treaty with Philip in 1193 that at some time or other Aimar had done homage to Philip (“Comes Engolismensis tenebit terram suam a Rege Franciae, illam scilicet de qua fecit se hominem [illius?]; a me,” _i. e._ John, “vero tenebit aliam terram quam a me debet tenere,” _Fœdera_ I. i. 57); there is nothing to show that he was the youngest of the family; it seems more likely that he was the next to Vulgrin in age, and therefore, if Maud’s claim was to be ruled out, next to Vulgrin also in the line of succession.
[160] G. Vigeois, 331.
[161] The district in which Clairvaux stood—the Loudunais—had originally belonged to Poitou; it was annexed to Anjou towards the end of the tenth century by Geoffrey Greygown, who held it under homage to the Poitevin Count William III. This homage became obsolete after Geoffrey Martel’s victory over William VIII in 1033. Richard may possibly have had some idea of reviving the Poitevin claim to the overlordship of the Loudunais; but it is more likely that he simply did not know, and did not care to ascertain, exactly where the frontier line ran.
[162] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 33-40.
[163] _Gesta_, i. 294; R. Diceto, ii. 18, where young Henry is made to say that Richard fortified Clairvaux “contra suam” (_i. e._ young Henry’s) “voluntatem.”
[164] G. Vigeois, 332; Bern. Itier, a. 1182.
[165] G. Vigeois, 332—“Olivarus frater Petri vicecomitis de Castellone,” _i. e._ Castillon in Périgord. A month earlier Aimar of Limoges had taken and destroyed the “Burgum S. Germani”; _ib._ Probably this means S. Germain-les-Belles, near Limoges, and Aimar was merely chastising a vassal of his own; at any rate there is nothing to imply that the matter concerned Richard in any way.
[166] Cf. “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28, and “Chazutz sui,” ll. 29-31.
[167] “Chazutz sui,” ll. 25-36.
[168] “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28.
[169] See “No posc mudar,” ll. 13-16, and Thomas, Introd. xv. I venture, however, to think that “Rancon” probably stands not for the place now so called, in Haute-Vienne (Thomas, 77, note 4), _i. e._ in the Limousin, but for Rancogne in the Angoumois, the home of the well-known Geoffrey, lord also of Pons and of Taillebourg.
[170] See “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 11-14, with the reference to “quem disses [el coms, _i. e._ Richard] antan.”
[171] _Gesta_, i. 291.
[172] _Ib._, 294, 295.
[173] _Ib._, 295.
[174] _Gesta_, i. 295.
[175] R. Diceto, ii. 18—“homagium et ligantiam.” Cf. _Gesta_, i. 291-2.
[176] R. Diceto, _l.c._
[177] _I. e._, probably, to an explanation that the homage was not meant to take effect till young Henry should be in his father’s place.
[178] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[179] _Ib._, 295.
[180] “Vehementer excanduit, incongruum esse dicens, ut dicitur, cum eodem ex patre, cum eadem ex matre, traxisset originem, si fratrem primogenitum aliqua specie subjectionis superiorem agnosceret; sed sicut ipsi fratri suo regi lege primogenitorum bona debebantur paterna, sic in bonis maternis aequa lance successionem legitimam vindicabat,” R. Diceto, ii. 18, 19. That is to say, in fact, he claimed to hold Aquitaine, _after his father’s death_, as a direct underfief of the kingdom of France, and not as a part of the Angevin dominions at all. In other words, he claimed the right to break up the Angevin empire; which was precisely what Henry II was trying to prevent.
[181] _Gesta_, i. 292.
[182] R. Diceto, ii. 19.
[183] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 292 and 295.
[184] “Transacta Purificatione B. Mariae,” G. Vigeois, 332. Geoffrey dates the quarrel between the king’s sons “tertio idus Decembris, celebrata Domini Nativitate.” Can he mean “tertio idus Januarii,” January 11? This might very well be the date of the final quarrel between young Henry and Richard.
[185] _Gesta_, i. 296.
[186] G. Vigeois, _l.c._; _Gesta_, i. 292, 293.
[187] _Gesta_, i. 293. It is hardly possible that Geoffrey can have had time to go in person into Britanny as the _Gesta_ imply; but it is clear from Bertrand de Born’s poem “D’un sirventes nom chal” that he was deep in the Aquitanian plot before his eldest brother’s adhesion to it was known; no doubt, therefore, he had secretly made his preparations beforehand for the crisis which had now come.
[188] G. Vigeois, 332.
[189] G. Vigeois, 332.
[190] _Gesta_, i. 292. G. Vigeois, _l.c._, mentions among the “barones et principes” who “tunc temporis conspiraverunt adversus Ricardum,” besides young Henry and Geoffrey of Britanny, Elias, and “Taillefer” of Angoulême, Aimar of Limoges, Raymond of Turenne, Peter viscount of Castillon and his brother Oliver of Chalais, Fulcaud of Archiac (in Saintonge) and Geoffrey of Lusignan. This last was now at Limoges, and in the most intimate counsels of the young king; see _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 6408-13.
[191] R. Howden, ii. 274.
[192] G. Vigeois, _l.c._
[193] Saint Pierre du Queiroix, “de Quadrivio,” situated near the north-east angle of the old town or Castrum S. Martialis; _ib._
[194] “Santius de Sarannas et Curbanus seu Curbaranus,” G. Vigeois, 333; in all other places where Geoffrey mentions the latter he uses the longer form of the name. “Curbaran” is the name of a Saracen prince in the _Chanson d’Antioche_. In the printed editions of Geoffrey’s history the other leader figures as _Sautius_ and _Saucius_, but these are probably misreadings of _Santius_ and _Sancius_, Latin for Sancho or Sanchez. Sérannes or Serranes is the name of a cluster of hills in what is now the department of Héraut; most likely this bandit chief had a favourite lurking-place there; cf. “Willekin of the Weald.”
[195] G. Vigeois, 333, 334.
[196] _Ib._, 333-4.
[197] “Citramarinos principes.”
[198] G. Vigeois, 335-6.
[199] _Gesta_, i. 299.
[200] G. Vigeois, 335.
[201]
“Tost l’agral reis joves matat, Sil coms nol [nos, Stimming] n’agues ensenhat; Mas aissils clan els enserra Qu’Engolmes a per fort cobrat E tot Saintonge delivrat Tro lai part Finibus Terra.”
—“Eu chant,” ll. 7-12. Bertrand’s modern commentators have assumed that the nominative to “a cobrat e ... delivrat” is “lo reis joves,” and understood ll. 9-12 as referring to the invasion of the Angoumois and Saintonge by the Routiers in behalf of young Henry. I venture to suggest that the true nominative is “lo coms”—_i. e._, the count of Poitou. There could be no “recovery” of the Angoumois either by or for young Henry, who had never had any authority there. The whole structure and context of the lines indicate that they refer to Richard. “Finibus Terra,” Finisterre, doubtless stands here, like “Broceliande” in another of Bertrand’s poems (“D’un sirventes nom chal,” l. 33), simply for Britanny.
[202] “Eu chant,” ll. 5-12, 16-18. On l. 8, “Sil coms,” etc., see Stimming’s note, 155.
[203] G. Vigeois, 336.
[204] “Eu chant,” ll. 37-42.
[205] G. Vigeois, 338.
[206] _Ib._, 337.
[207] _Ib._, 336, 338.
[208] _Ib._, 337; cf. _Gesta_, i. 302, 303.
[209] G. Vigeois, 337.
[210] On comparing the words of G. Vigeois, _l.c._—“Castrum ... dux jure praelii cepit”—with those of Bertrand himself—“Autafort, Qu’eu ai rendut Al senhor de Niort, Quar l’a volgut” (“Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 5-8), I think this must be the real meaning of both.
[211] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 9-14.
[212] G. Vigeois, _l.c._
[213] “Nom chal d’Autafort, Mais far dreit ni tort, Qu’el jutjamen crei Monsenhor lo rei”; last four lines of “Ges de far sirventes.”
[214] “Ges de far,” ll. 9, 10.
[215] Literally “as true as any silver”—“fi com us argens,” “Ges no mi desconort,” l. 50.
[216] _Gesta_, i. 308.
[217] A. Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 373, from a document in the cartulary of Fontevraud. The “five years” which John is there stated to have spent in the abbey must be prior to February 1173; this appears from later notices of his whereabouts cited in my _John Lackland_, pp. 7, 8.
[218] _Gesta_, i. 308.
[219] G. Vigeois, 342.
[220] _Ib._, 338.
[221] Cf. _ib._, 338, 339, Rigord (ed. Delaborde), i. 36, and on the “Pacifici,” R. Torigni, a. 1183, Gerv. Cant., i. 300, 301, and Rigord, i. 37-39.
[222] G. Vigeois, 338.
[223] “Lobar seu le Bar,” _ib._, 323, 324, 326, 342. In a Life of S. Stephen of Grandmont which seems to date from the time of Pope Clement III (1187-91) or soon after, the same man is called “Lupardus.” Labbe, _Biblioth._, ii. 676.
[224] G. Vigeois, 342.
[225] _Gesta_, i. 306.
[226] _Gesta_, i. 306.
[227]
“E li reis l’aveit mult amee; Des que il esteit coens de Peitiers, La coveita sis covestiers.”
_Est. de la Guerre Sainte_, ll. 1150-2.
“A multo tempore quo comes erat Pictavensis ... plurimum desideravit eam,” _Itin._, 175.
[228] _Gesta_, i. 311.
[229] _Ib._, 319.
[230] _Gesta_, i. 319-21.
[231] _Ib._ 333, 334.
[232] _Ib._, 337.
[233] _Ib._, 313.
[234] _Ib._, 337, 338.
[235] _Gesta_, i. 338.
[236] _Ib._, 318, 319; R. Howden, ii. 288.
[237] _Gesta_, i. 322.
[238]
“Membrelh [Felip] sa sor el maritz orgolhos Que la laissa e no la vol tener; Aquest forfaitz mi sembla desplazer, E tot ades que s’en vai perjuran, Quel reis Navars l’a sai dat per espos A sa filha, per que l’anta es plus gran.” B. de Born, “Seu fos aissi senher,” ll. 22-8.
Thomas (73) and Stimming (36) are agreed that this _sirventes_ dates from 1188. Stimming seems to think the lines quoted above refer to an event of quite recent occurrence; but anything like an avowed troth-plight between Richard and Berengaria at any time except between December 1183 and March 1186 would have been an insult to France so flagrant that neither Richard nor Sancho is likely to have run the risks which it would have involved. During that period, however, such a betrothal would give Philip no lawful ground for complaint, although a mischief-maker might easily use it, either at the time or some years later, to excite the French king’s resentment against a man who had thus failed to appreciate the honour of becoming his brother-in-law and preferred a daughter of Navarre to a daughter of France.
[239] _Gesta_, i. 343, 344; date from R. Diceto, ii. 40.
[240] _Gesta_, i. 345.
[241] R. Diceto, _l.c._
[242] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[243] _Gesta_, i. 345.
[244] _Ib._, 347, 350.
[245] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 43, 44, with _Gesta_, i. 353.
[246] _Gesta_, ii. 5.
[247] Rigord, _l.c._
[248] Gerv. Cant., i. 346; cf. Rigord, _l.c._, who mentions only the dowry, not the bride.
[249] Rigord, _l.c._
[250] _Ib._, 78.
[251] Cf. Rigord, 78, _Gesta_, ii. 6, and Gerv. Cant., i. 369.
[252] Gerv. Cant., i. 371-3.
[253] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 2.
[254] “Johannes ... cujus promotionis causa haec omnia mala sustinui.” Gir. Cambr., _De. Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.
[255] R. Diceto, ii. 49. Gerald, _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 2, says one year; but Ralf is more to be trusted on this point. On the other hand, Ralf’s date—Tuesday, the eve of S. John—is a day too early to be compatible with the circumstantial narrative of Gervase.
[256] Rigord, i. 79.
[257] _Gesta_, ii. 7.
[258] Gerv. Cant., i. 373.
[259] _Gesta_, ii. 7.
[260] _Ib._, 9.
[261] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 5.
[262] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 50; W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.
[263] Gerv. Cant., i. 389.
[264] W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.
[265] _Gesta_, ii. 29. This writer, Roger of Howden (ii. 334), and R. Diceto (ii. 51) date the conference January 21; Gervase (i. 406) says “about S. Vincent’s day” (January 22); Rigord (83) and William the Breton (_Gesta Ph. Aug._, 187) say January 13. Probably it began on S. Hilary’s day, was suspended owing to the arrival of the archbishop of Tyre, and was resumed on January 21.
[266] _Gesta_, ii. 29-30. W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23, represents the conference as held in consequence of the archbishop’s coming, and for no other purpose than to consult as to what could be done for Palestine. Rigord (_l.c._), Gir. Cambr. (_De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 5), Gerv. Cant. (i. 406) and R. Diceto (_l.c._) say merely that the kings held a conference and took the Cross.
[267] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._
[268] _Gesta_, ii. 30.
[269] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[270] _Ib._
[271] On January 30; _Gesta_, ii. 33.
[272] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[273] R. Diceto, ii. 54, 55.
[274] _Gesta_, ii. 34.
[275] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._
[276] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[277] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 55, and _Gesta_, ii. 34.
[278] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._
[279] _Gesta_, _l.c._; cf. R. Diceto, _l.c._, Rigord (ed. Delaborde, 90) dates this invasion of Toulouse “inter Pentecosten et festum S. Johannis,” _i. e._ between June 5 and 24; we shall, however, see that it must have taken place some considerable time before June 16. In my _Angevin Kings_ I adopted Rigord’s date, but I now recognize that this was an error, and that the editors of Vic and Vaissète are right in following William the Breton, who (ed. Delaborde, i. 187) places the expedition “a short time after” (_modico post elapso tempore_) a council which according to Rigord (_ib._, 84) was held at Paris in March. Otherwise there would not have been time for all the captures, negotiations, etc. “Toulouse” here evidently means the county of Toulouse proper; the Quercy was already in Richard’s hands, annexed by him to his ducal domains in 1186.
[280] Rigord, 90; cf. R. Diceto, _l.c._, _Gesta_, ii. 36, and Gerv. Cant., ii. 432.
[281] _Gesta_, ii. 34, 35.
[282] Rigord, 90.
[283] _Gesta_, ii. 35, 36.
[284] R. Diceto, ii. 55.
[285] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[286] _Ib._
[287] _Gesta_, ii. 40. It is noticeable that the Angevin princes are at this period always represented as describing their Toulousan rival only by his ancestral title derived from the little county of S. Gilles which was the cradle of his family, thus tacitly reserving their own claim to be the rightful holders, not merely overlords, of his greater possession, Toulouse.
[288] Montrichard, Montrésor, Coulangé; Rigord, 91, 92.
[289] Date from R. Diceto, _l.c._ Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 39, and Rigord, _l.c._
[290] Gerv. Cant. i. 432, 433; cf. _Gesta_, ii. 40.
[291] Rigord, 92.
[292] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[293] _Ib._, ii. 45.
[294] “Ne nihil ageretur,” Gerv. Cant., i. 434.
[295] Gerv. Cant., i. 434.
[296] Rigord, _l.c._
[297] _Gesta_, ii. 45; cf. _ib._, 39, 40.
[298] R. Diceto, ii. 55; cf. W. Armor., _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (ed. Delaborde), 188, 189.
[299] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 7389-405, 7610-40.
[300] _Gesta_, ii. 46. William the Breton in his _Philippis_, lib. iii. ll. 410-624, gives a much longer account of this affair, with a minute description of the personal struggle between Richard and William des Barres, and no mention at all of the capture of William. There can hardly be a doubt that the English prose writer’s brief version is more trustworthy than the French poet-historiographer’s lengthy elaboration. The latter has, however, one interesting touch; in ll. 445-6 the poet makes William des Barres say of Richard: “Rictus agnosco leonum Illius in clypeo.”
[301] _Gesta_, ii. 46.
[302] This is an inference from the fact that Philip is said to have taken Palluau after the conference in October, _Gesta_, ii. 49.
[303] _Gesta_, ii. 49.
[304] _Ib._
[305] “Fo ordenatz per lor us parlamens ou foron ensems en la marcha de Torena e de Beiriu, els reis Felips si fetz mains reclams d’en Richart, dont amdui vengron a grans paraulas e a malas, si qu’en Richartz lo desmenti el clamet vil recrezen, e sis desfieron e sis partiron a mal.” _Razo_ of B. de Born’s _sirventes_ “Al dous nous,” Thomas, 69, 70. Cf. Bertrand’s own words in the same _sirventes_, ll. 28-31: “Guerra sens fuoc e sens sanc De rei ni de gran poesta Cui coms laidis ne desmenta Non es ges paraula genta.”
[306] _Gesta_, ii. 49.
[307] R. Diceto, ii. 57.
[308] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.
[309] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8116-39. This writer’s story is here somewhat confused; he gives to the conference a date which is certainly wrong—“a cluse Pasque, le mardi” (l. 8069), _i. e._, Tuesday, April 18, 1189, instead of November 18, 1188.
[310] “Proposuit rex Francorum quod ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat Anglorum regi restitueret, et post, omnia manerent in eo statu quo fuerunt ante crucem susceptam.... Comes Pictavorum penitus contradixit; sibi quidem videbatur incongruum quod hac servata conditione Cadurcum redderet et totum comitatum, et alia multa ... pro feodo de Castro Radulfi et de castello de Hissoudun et Crazai,” etc., R. Diceto, ii. 58. The two kings took the Cross in January 1188. The date of Richard’s annexation of the Quercy is not certain, but it must be either 1186 or spring 1188. Philip took Châteauroux in June 1188; but he had won Issoudun and Graçay in the spring of 1187, therefore these two places would not be included in a restoration of “ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat.” The only possible explanation of the discrepancy seems to be that Ralph de Diceto momentarily confused the conference at which Philip and Henry took the Cross, at Gisors in January 1188, with their meeting at the same place on March 10, 1186.
[311] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 58, Rigord, 92, 93, Gerv. Cant., i. 435, and _Gesta_, ii. 50. The biographer of William the Marshal gives (ll. 8089-175) a somewhat different account of the conference; he says nothing of any request made there by Richard to his father, but represents Philip as urging Henry to increase Richard’s actual possessions by giving him Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and asserts that before the conference Philip had won Richard over to him by promising “qu’il li dorreit en demeine” those three counties, and Richard had privately done him homage for them. If we accept this story, we must regard the whole conduct not only of Philip but also of Richard at Bonmoulins as a piece of utterly shameless acting, performed with the deliberate purpose on Richard’s part of breaking finally with his father; for no sane person could expect any other answer than a refusal to such a request as this. The whole story of the relations between Henry, Richard, and Philip is, however, only touched upon in a very meagre and perfunctory way by the Marshal’s biographer, whose subject it did not directly concern, and who has almost certainly made one positive mistake with regard to the Bonmoulins conference, in giving it a date which is five months too late; I think therefore that the version of Rigord, Ralph de Diceto, and Gervase of Canterbury is to be in every way preferred to his.
[312] R. Diceto, ii. 58.
[313] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.
[314] R. Diceto, _l.c._; _Gesta_, ii. 50. Cf. Rigord, 93.
[315] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[316] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 58.
[317] “Eissi commensa la meslee Qui unques ne fu desmelee,” _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8185-6.
[318] Gerv. Cant., i. 435, 436.
[319] R. Howden, ii. 355.
[320] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8189-254.
[321] Cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 436.
[322] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8285-9.
[323] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.
[324] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 10.
[325] _Gesta_, ii. 61. Probably they joined forces in Berry and thence made an incursion into Touraine.
[326] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.
[327] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8311-30.
[328] R. Diceto, ii. 62.
[329] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 13.
[330] He visited Henry at Le Mans on Ascension Day, May 18; _Epp. Cant._, 90.
[331] Reims, Bourges, Rouen and Canterbury; _Gesta_, ii. 61.
[332] _Ib._, 66, with date “adveniente Pentecoste.” Rog. Howden, ii. 362, says “in octavis Pentecostes,” which agrees better with Gerald’s statement (_l.c._ c. 14) that the war began “about June 1.” Gervase of Canterbury (i. 446) is of course doubly wrong in placing the assembly “apud Cenomannum quinto Idus Junii.”
[333] _Gesta_, R. Howden, and Gerv. Cant., _ll.cc._
[334] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._
[335] _Gesta_, ii. 66.
[336] R. Howden, ii. 363.
[337] _Ib._, 362.
[338] _Ib._, 363.
[339] _Gesta_, ii. 67.
[340] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8349-50.
[341] _Ib._, 8357-74.
[342] “Rex Francorum et Comes ... intra paucos dies Feritatem praedictam, Baalum, Bellummontem ... occupaverunt. A municipalibus circumquaque _Comiti_ fit deditio castellorum.” R. Diceto, ii. 62, 63. Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 67, where Maletable—“Malum Stabulum”—is probably a mistake for Bonnétable, about half way between La Ferté and Beaumont. The Marshal’s biographer (ll. 8362-68), like the _Gesta_, does not mention Richard, and names only three castles as falling into Philip’s hands—La Ferté, Ballon, and “Montfort le Retrot, qui gaires n’ert fort, E li fust tantost rendu, Unques ne fust defendu.” He, however, certainly knew of Richard’s presence with the French host, for we shall see that he expressly mentions him as engaged in the pursuit from Le Mans on June 12. If Beaumont was given up without resistance, its constable, not its owner the viscount, was probably answerable for the surrender, since it was at another of the viscount’s castles, La Frênaye, that Henry found shelter soon afterwards.
[343] _Gesta_, ii. 67.
[344] Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8835-46 with ll. 9321-37, and the brief summary of Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25: “Cessante vero demum persequentium instantia per Comitis Pictaviensis casum, equum ejusdem militari lancea perfosso.”
[345] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8847-64.
[346] _Gesta_, ii. 68, 69.
[347] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.
[348] Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 69, Gir. Cambr., _l.c._, W. Armor., _Gesta Phil. Aug._, 190, and _Philippis_, lib. iii. ll. 735-8 (the poet gives the date of the meeting by implication in l. 748), and Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, ii. lxvii, note 2.
[349] _Gesta_, ii. 70, 71.
[350] _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 8957.
[351] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 26.
[352] _Ib._, 25; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9068-78.
[353] _Gesta_, ii. 69.
[354] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9245-8.
[355] The statement in _Gesta Ricardi_ (_Gesta Hen. et Ric._, ii.), 71, that he met the funeral procession on the way and accompanied it “flens et ejulans” is at variance with a better authority for the details of the burial—the _Hist. G. le Mar._—and is improbable for geographical reasons.
[356] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9294-8.
[357] Disfigured, “sicut perhibent qui presentes fuerunt et viderunt,” by a bleeding from the nostrils which began as soon as Richard entered the church and ceased only when he went out again; Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28.
[358] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9299-303.
[359] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28.
[360] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9304-41.
[361] Gilbert Pipard, a well-known officer of the Exchequer; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9347-51.
[362] The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9350-1, says Richard bade the envoys themselves “Si pernez garde de ma terre E de trestot mon autre afaire”; but the English chroniclers know nothing of this, and one of them distinctly asserts that Eleanor was made regent: “Alienor regina ... statuendi quae vellet in regno potestatem accepit a filio. Datum siquidem est in mandatis regni principibus et quasi sub edicto generali statutum ut ad reginae nutum omnia disponerentur.” R. Diceto, ii. 66. (This passage is immediately followed by the one about “aquila rupti fœderis.”) Cf. _Gesta_, 74.
[363] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9361-408. Châteauroux, it will be remembered, had been in Philip’s hands since June 1187.
[364] His very identity is a puzzle; under Henry II we read of Stephen de Matha, Stephen de Marzay, Stephen of Turnham, and Stephen “de Turonis,” all bearing the title of “Seneschal of Anjou,” and it is doubtful whether or not all these names represent the same man. In the passage now before us the _Gesta_ (71) call him “de Turonis,” but it is clear from other evidence that this means Turnham, not Tours. The _Gesta_ continue (71, 72): “Et uxorem filii praedicti Stephani propter ignobilitatem mariti ab ipso separari fecit [rex] et alii marito dari; minans se hujusmodi nobilium puellarum vel viduarum cum ignobilibus contubernia sua auctoritate secundum leges separare.” Is it possible that Stephen’s crime consisted in having contrived or connived at a ceremony of marriage, without licence from the Crown, between his son and some royal ward who had been committed to his custody? Such a marriage, if merely formal and if the parties were under age, might be voidable by a sentence of the king. According to R. Devizes, 6, 7 (ed. Stevenson), Richard brought Stephen over with him, in chains, to England, and kept him in prison at Winchester till he redeemed himself by a heavy fine. This fine may have been either for the misdemeanour which I have suggested, or in remission of a vow of Crusade—which vow, however, Stephen fulfilled after all.
[365] _Gesta_, 72.
[366] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.
[367] R. Diceto, ii. 66, 67.
[368] _Gesta_, 73; R. Diceto, ii. 67.
[369] Rigord, 97.
[370] Date from _Gesta_, 73, 74; place from R. Howden, iii. 4.
[371] _Gesta_, 74.
[372] _Ib._; R. Howden, iii. 4; Gerv. Cant., i. 450, 451 (who seems to have got confused between Auvergne and Berry); and Rigord, 97, whose statement is of course conclusive as to the final terms so far as the lands are concerned.
[373] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.
[374] _Ib._, 450.
[375] _Ib._, 457; _Gesta_, 75, with a self-contradictory date.
[376] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._, says Southampton; the _Gesta_, _l.c._, say Portsmouth.
[377] Gerv. Cant., i. 453, 454, 457; R. Diceto, ii. 67; cf. _Gesta_, 76. The first gives date August 14, the second August 15.
[378] _Gesta_, 75.
[379] _Gesta_, 74, 75.
[380] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.
[381] _Gesta_, 75-6.
[382] Gerv. Cant., i. 457.
[383] The _Itin. Ric. Reg._, 142, says “die S. Ægidii receptus est cum processione apud Westmonasterium, et die tertia sequenti ... unctus est in regem.” Gervase, i. 457, dates the arrival in London September 2. The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9568-9, says, “A mult riche procession Fu receuz dedenz Seint Pol,” without any date.
[384] _Itin._, 142; Gerv. Cant., i. 457; R. Diceto, ii. 68; _Gesta_, 78, 79.
[385] Ralph de Diceto, who as dean of S. Paul’s handed the ampulla to the Primate, the bishop of London, to whom this duty belonged, being absent through illness. R. Diceto, ii. 69.
[386] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 68, _Gesta_, 81, 82, and R. Howden, iii. 10.
[387] _Gesta_, 82; R. Howden, iii. 10, 11.
[388] _Estoire de la Croisade_, ll. 205, 206; the writer implies that he was there.
[389] _Gesta_, 83.
[390] _Gesta_, 83; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.
[391] W. Newb., _l.c._
[392] _Ib._
[393] _Gesta_, 84.
[394] W. Newb., _l.c._
[395] _Gesta_, 84.
[396] So at least we should gather from the treasurer’s apparent inability to find any money for King Henry’s funeral; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9173-200. Of course we must remember that Richard himself had emptied that treasury two years before. This again implies that he was at that time short of money in Aquitaine, and therefore not likely to have since then accumulated anything in the way of a reserve fund there.
[397] _Gesta_, 76, 77; R. Howden, iii. 8.
[398] “Nongenta millia librarum,” _Gesta_, 77; “Thesaurus ... magnus valde, excedens numerum et valentiam centum millia marcarum” (= £66,666 13_s._ 4_d._), R. Howden, _l.c._ There can be little doubt that the _Gesta’s_ figure is, as Dr. Stubbs suggested it might be, an error for “nonaginta.” We know that the royal revenue for the financial year which ended three weeks after Richard’s coronation amounted to somewhat less than fifty thousand pounds (£48,781; Stubbs, preface to _Gesta_, ii. xcix).
[399] R. Howden, iii. 17.
[400] _Gesta_, 90.
[401] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.
[402] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 10.
[403] _Gesta_, 90, 91.
[404] R. Howden, iii. 13.
[405] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; cf. R. Devizes, 10.
[406] R. Howden, ii. 302.
[407] R. Devizes, 7.
[408] _Gesta_, 87; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4. Elsewhere the former writer includes Ranulf among the officers whom he represents as compulsorily deposed and held to ransom: “Eodem mense Ricardus Rex deposuit a balliis suis Ranulfum de Glanvilla justiciarium Angliae et fere omnes vicecomites,” etc. (_Gesta_, 90); but his own statement in p. 87, confirmed by William of Newburgh, suffices to contradict this so far as Glanville is concerned.
[409] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4.
[410] _Epp. Cantuar._, 329.
[411] _Gesta_, 87, 90, 91; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxviii, note 3.
[412] Gir. Cambr., _Vita Galfr._, lib. i. c. 6 (_Opera_, iv. 374).
[413] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 9.
[414] _Gesta_, 72; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxiv, note 1.
[415] _Gesta_, 78.
[416] See _John Lackland_, 26-8, and the references there given in footnotes.
[417] The gross total of the ferms and other profits of the six counties for the year ending Michaelmas 1189 was £4,081 9_s._ 8_d._; Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, iii. xxv, note 4. The greater part of this sum was derived from the miscellaneous profits, which were liable to fluctuation. The £500-£600 worth of other lands given to John would no doubt insure that this fluctuation should not reduce John’s total annual income from his English possessions (irrespective of his Gloucester earldom and honour) below £4000. Stubbs (_l.c._, xxiv, note 2) thought that “this promise of £4000 a year in land was not regarded as fulfilled by the bestowal of the counties.... We find that in 1195 when John had been removed from the government of the counties, his income from the Exchequer was £8000 (Howden, iii. 286), but ... in Angevin money and only equal to £2000 sterling.” Howden’s words in the place here cited are “Eodem anno Ricardus rex Angliae remisit Johanni fratri suo omnem iram et malivolentiam suam, et reddidit ei comitatum de Moretonia et honorem de Eia, et comitatum Glocestriae, cum omni integritate eorum, exceptis castellis; et pro omnibus aliis comitatibus et terris suis dedit ei rex per annum octo millia librarum Andegavensis monetae.” To me these words seem to imply nothing definite as to the relative value of the counties and other lands of which John had been deprived and of the money compensation given to him in their stead in 1195. Nor does Bishop Stubbs’s further remark, “However, it is clear that whilst he was in charge of the counties he was receiving a large sum from the Exchequer; R. Devizes, 26,” seem to me borne out by the passage to which he here gives a reference, and which runs thus: “Colloquium primum inter comitem de Moretonio, fratrem regis, et cancellarium, de custodiis quorumdam castellorum et de pecunia comiti a fratre de scaccario concessa, apud Wintoniam ad Laetare Hierusalem” (_i. e._, March 4, 1191).
[418] Or Geddington; R. Diceto, ii. 69. Geddington was a royal manor; the king lodged in his own house there, but the council meetings were held in Pipewell Abbey, which stood within the boundaries of the manor. _Monasticon_, v. 431.
[419] Stubbs, note to _Gesta_, 97.
[420] _Ann. Cambr._, 57.
[421] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[422] _Ib._, 92, 93; R. Howden, iii. 20. Richard was in London November 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 (Stubbs, _Gesta_, 97, note 3). According to the _Gesta_, the person who swore for Richard was William de Mandeville; according to R. Howden, William the Marshal. If the former be right the date must be before November 14, for on that day William de Mandeville died; R. Diceto, ii. 73.
[423] _Itin._, 145.
[424] _Ib._; Gerv. Cant., i. 474. The precise dates are November 26 to December 5; Stubbs, notes to _Gesta_, 97, 98.
[425] _Gesta_, 97, 99.
[426] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 72, and Gerv. Cant., i. 474.
[427] R. Diceto, ii. 72, 73; cf. _Gesta_, 99.
[428] Chron. Mailros, a. 1157.
[429] _Gesta Hen._, i. 96, 98.
[430] _Ib._ 351; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.
[431] R. Howden, ii. 338, 339.
[432] _Gesta Hen._, ii. 44.
[433] £6,666 13_s._ 4_d._, W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; R. Diceto, ii. 72. The _Gesta_, 98, make the sum 10,000 marks sterling, _i. e._, £6,600. The charter in which Richard’s concessions to William are embodied contains no mention of money.
[434] _Fœdera_, I. i. 50. Date, December 5, 1189.
[435] “Pactiones quas ... Henricus rex per novas cartas et per captionem suam” (_i. e._, Willelmi) “extorsit.”
[436] William had been captured, with some sixty of his men, when the bulk of the force with which he was besieging Alnwick was out of reach, by a body of several hundred English knights who had ridden to the place through a thick mist which prevented them from seeing where they were and the Scots from discovering their approach till a sudden clearing of the air surprised both parties alike by revealing their presence to each other, and the little band of Scots, though they made a splendid fight, were easily surrounded. W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 33; Jordan Fantosme, ll. 1731-1839.
[437] This is the date of Richard’s charter as printed from an original copy in _Fœdera_, I. i. 50. “He,” says Richard, “became our liegeman for all the lands for which his ancestors were liegemen of our ancestors, and he swore fealty to us and our heirs.” See also _Gesta_, 104.
[438] _Gesta_, 100.
[439] R. Diceto, ii. 73, makes the date December 14 and the landing-place Gravelines; the _Gesta_ writer, 101, says “xi^o die Decembris, in vigilia S. Luciae,” which is self-contradictory, S. Lucy’s day being December 13. For “in vigilia S. Luciae” Roger of Howden (iii. 28) substitutes “feria secunda,” which would be right for December 11, 1189. Both these latter writers say that Richard landed at Calais, and that the Count of Flanders met him on his landing and escorted him “cum gaudio” into Normandy.
[440] At Bures, according to _Gesta_, 104; at Lions, according to _Itin._, 145.
[441] _Est. de la Guerre Ste._, ll. 247-50.
[442] The proclamation inserted by R. Diceto, ii. 73, 74, is dated Nonancourt, December 30; the _Gesta_, 104, places the meeting at the Ford of S. Rémi. This was the usual place for conferences, and is close to Nonancourt.
[443] The _Gesta_, 105, and R. Diceto, ii. 74, say that S. John Baptist’s day was the date fixed at the second conference, which was held on January 13 (_Gesta_, _l.c._). R. Diceto, however, elsewhere (ii. 77) gives Midsummer as the date fixed at the third conference, which he says took place on the day on which the Queen of France died, or was buried; it is not clear which he means. She died on March 15; Rigord, 97. This is clearly the conference at which the _Estoire_, ll. 259-86, and _Itin._ 146, tell us the kings received the news of her death (she died unexpectedly, in childbirth), and agreed to set out each from his own dominions on S. John Baptist’s day and meet at Vézelay for the final start together on the octave. The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ place this conference “at Dreux.” Richard was at Nonancourt on March 14 (_Fœdera_, I. i. 51); the Gué St. Rémi is midway between these two towns and was no doubt the real meeting-place.
[444] _Gallia Christ._, i. 988.
[445] Richard, _Comtes._, ii. 263.
[446] R. Diceto, ii. 73. R. Coggeshall, 26, says December 12, but there are several indications that Mandeville was dead before Richard left England.
[447] _Gesta_, 101. Roger of Howden, iii. 28, says: “Hugo Dunelmensis et Willelmus Eliensis Episcopi remanserunt in Anglia summi justiciarii”; but the _Gesta_ and R. Devizes (11) distinctly imply that at this time William of Ely, though practically viceroy, was not titularly chief justiciar. He was, however, added to the number of assistant justiciars (_Gesta_, _l.c._), and probably this is what Roger really means.
[448] _Gesta_, 105, 106. R. Howden, iii. 32.
[449] _Gesta_, 106.
[450] After March 27; see _Fœdera_, I. i. 51.
[451] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[452] _Ib._
[453] R. Howden, iii. 8.
[454] There is one rather curious-looking case of a ship which the king seems to have originally bought for £100, given to the Knights of the Hospital (in England), and bought back from them for £9. Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 13. But I do not feel quite sure of the meaning of the passage.
[455] See extract from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. II in Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 11-13. A captain’s pay was double that of a common sailor; _ib._ The total of ships enumerated in this passage, exclusive of smacks, whose number is not given, is forty-seven. The total of the fleet when it set out was 107 or 108 “besides some others which followed”: _Est._, ll. 311-13, _Itin._ 47.
[456] _Gesta_, 110, 111; R. Howden, iii. 36, 37. These ordinances are dated “apud Chinonem.” As in both the writers who record them they are inserted after some events which took place in England in June, and as Richard is known, from several sources, to have been at Chinon on June 20, this is the date usually assigned for their issue. But it cannot be correct; for both our authorities say that the fleet sailed “statim post Pascha” (March 25), and that a part of it entered the Bay of Biscay on Ascension day (May 6); _Gesta_, 116; R. Howden, iii. 42. These ordinances, and the sailing order issued at the same time with them, must therefore have been issued before Easter. We have seen that Richard met Philip on the Norman border on March 15, the Thursday before Palm Sunday; after that, we have no notice of his whereabouts till April 17, when he was at Chinon (Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, 264). In all likelihood he had been there for a month, almost ever since his meeting with Philip.
[457] _Gesta_, 111, 116. The _Itin._, 147, and _Est._, ll. 307-10, represent this order for immediate departure as issued much later still, from Tours, just before the king himself set out thence for Vézelay, _i. e._, at the end of June; but as has been shown in the preceding note, this is quite incompatible with the date at which the fleet actually sailed.
[458] Endowment charter, dated Luçon, May 5 (1190); witnesses, Peter Bertin, seneschal of Poitou (appointed not before February 21, 1190, Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, 265), Stephen de Marzay, Brother Miles the duke’s almoner, Ralf FitzGeoffrey his chamberlain, and John of Alençon his vice-chancellor, who sealed the deed. Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 265; from Tardif, _Archives du Poitou_ (Trésor des Chartes), xi. 408.
[459] _Gesta_, 99. The earlier queen referred to is there called Matilda, but as the writer calls Stephen’s wife “Alicia,” it is possible that he has reversed the names and that the other queen whom he intended to mention was not Maud of Scotland but Henry’s second wife, Adeliza of Louvain.
[460] “Gourfaille, canton de Pissotte, Vendée,” Richard, _Comtes_, _l.c._, from _Archives du Poitou_, i. 120.
[461] _Gall. Christ._, ii. instr. 388. On the 7th he was at S. Jean d’Angély; Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 266, from _Arch. Hist. de Saintonge_, xxviii. 140.
[462] June 6; letter in R. Diceto, ii. 83.
[463] R. Howden, iii. 35. Roger calls this man William of “Chisi”; Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, says “Chis, Hautes Pyrénées,” and seems to date this expedition earlier, between February 21 and April 17; but he gives no reason for so doing, and it seems therefore better to accept the sequence of events given by Roger, with which Richard’s presence at Bayonne on June 6 fits in very well.
[464] Stapleton, _Norm. Exch. Rolls_, i. cxlv.
[465] R. Devizes, 15.
[466] R. Howden, iii. 36—miscalling the archbishop “William” as usual.
[467] _Ib._, 37. There is documentary evidence of Richard’s presence at Tours on June 27, 1190; Teulet, _Layettes_, i. 158. Probably he was there several days earlier, as otherwise Philip would hardly have had time to visit him there and then go to Paris before setting out for Vézelay.
[468] _Est._, ll. 324-34.
[469] On June 27 Richard went from Tours to Montrichard (_Fœdera_, I. i. 48) by way of Azay (on the Cher, close to Tours); _Itin._, 149. In the next four days he passed through Selles (on the Cher) and La Chapelle [d’Anguillon, in Berry] to Donzy, in the Nivernais (_Itin._, _l.c._), where he was on July 1 (_Fœdera_, _l.c._). He may have gone from Donzy to Vézelay on that day. He was certainly at Vézelay on July 3 (_Monast._ VI. i. 327). Rigord (i. 99) says: “Feria quarta post octavas S. Johannis Baptistae” [= Wednesday, July 4] “cum rege Anglorum Ricardo apud Vizeliacum venit [rex Francorum],” which looks as if the kings had met on the way and arrived together; but if so, Rigord’s date is, as we have just seen, at least a day too late. The _Gesta Ric._ (111) say the two kings stayed at Vézelay two days, and the _Itinerarium_ (151) enumerates seven places through which they passed “distinctis dietis” from there to Lyons (M. Gaston Paris accepts this passage in the _Itinerarium_ as authentic, believing it to be derived “from an official source”). This would mean their leaving Vézelay on July 6 and reaching Lyons on the 13th; but from certain words in the _Gesta_ it seems possible, and I think even probable, that the true dates are the 3rd and the 10th. The whole sentence in the _Gesta_ runs thus: “Ibi [sc. apud Vizeliacum] moram fecerunt [reges] per duos dies _in octavis S. Iohannis Baptistae_.” Strictly interpreted, this should mean “within the octave”; it might mean “beginning on the octave,” _i. e._, July 1-3; but it cannot correctly represent July 4-6. Either it is a blunder, or Rigord is wrong in dating Philip’s arrival on the 4th. I venture to think the latter alternative the likelier of the two, as the English chroniclers appear to have followed their sovereign’s travels with great care, while Rigord is certainly far from being a specially accurate chronologist.
[470] _Est._, ll. 365-75; _Itin._, 150.
[471] _Gesta_, 111.
[472] _Est._, ll. 377-8.
[473] The stages are given in _Itin._ 151. See note 7 to p. 117 above.
[474] _Est._, ll. 413-28; _Itin._, _l.c._
[475] _Est._, ll. 429-36.
[476] It is said to have numbered 100,000; _Est._, l. 419, _Itin._, _l.c._
[477] _Gesta_, 112; _Est._, ll. 449-65; _Itin._, 152.
[478] _Est._, ll. 466-90. “Le Rogne, l’eve crestee,” l. 414.
[479] _Ib._, ll. 491-7.
[480] The two kings having agreed to separate their forces because they found them too numerous to travel in one body; _Gesta_, 112.
[481] _Itin._, 152.
[482] _Ib._, _Est._, ll. 499-510.
[483] _Itin._, _l.c._
[484] We get this date from the _Gesta_, 112, where it is said that Richard stayed at Marseille eight days and left on August 7. The author of the _Itinerarium_ enumerates (153) fifteen places which he says “_we_ went through” (_transivimus_) from Lyons to Marseille; but he does not (as in his account of the journey from Vézelay to Lyons) specify how many days’ travelling these stages represent; and moreover, he is evidently here not describing Richard’s journey at all, for he ends “apud Marsiliam, ubi moram fecimus per tres hebdomadas; postea mare intravimus, scilicet die proxima post festum Assumptionis Beatae Mariae,” _i. e._, August 16; that is, he represents himself as having reached Marseille on July 26. Supposing his narrative to be authentic, he must therefore have travelled from Lyons to Marseille not with the king, but in advance of him. On the other hand, if he was an impostor and not a Crusader at all, his evidence on this point is of no account. In either case, however, it is probable that the route he gives would occupy about a fortnight; Richard may therefore have set out from Lyons on July 17 or 18.
[485] R. Howden, iii. 51.
[486] _Ib._, 42.
[487] _Epp. Cantuar._, 328.
[488] _Gesta_, 15.
[489] The date of the death, November 1189, is given in _Gesta_, 101, 102.
[490] “Mare nauseans,” R. Devizes, 16.
[491] _Ib._
[492] _Gesta_, 112. R. Diceto, ii. 84, says “in vigilia S. Laurentii,” _i. e._, August 9; but in the _Gesta_ the date is the first of a whole series evidently derived from an official record of some kind, so it seems best to follow this authority.
[493] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[494] _Gesta_, 112-14.
[495] R. Diceto, ii. 84.
[496] _Gesta_, 114, 115.
[497] _Ib._, 124.
[498] _Gesta_, 115-22. 124; R. Howden, iii. 42-50. 53, 54.
[499] _Gesta_, 124; R. Diceto, ii. 84.
[500] Rigord, 106.
[501] Placed at his disposal by the new king of Sicily, Tancred; _Gesta_, _l.c._
[502] _Est._, ll. 573-80; _Itin._, 156.
[503] _Gesta_, 124, 125.
[504] _Est._, ll. 588-93.
[505] _Gesta_, 126; R. Howden, iii, 55. These and R. Diceto, ii. 84, give the date, September 23.
[506] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[507] _Est._, ll. 594-7.
[508] _Gesta_ and R. Howden, _ll.cc._
[509] The settlement is given at length in _Gesta_, i. 169, 170.
[510] Cf. _Gesta_, 132, 133, and R. Devizes, 19. According to the former authority the cups and dishes were of gold, according to the latter of silver.
[511] R. Devizes, 18.
[512] _Gesta_, 132.
[513] R. Devizes, 19. The _terrino_ was a small gold coin weighing twenty grains.
[514] _Gesta_, 126; date confirmed by R. Diceto, ii. 85.
[515] _Est._, ll. 549-58.
[516] _Est._, ll. 615-19.
[517] R. Devizes, 18.
[518] Cf. R. Devizes, 20, _Est._, ll. 547-58, 607-24, and _Gesta_, 138, 139.
[519] Cf. R. Devizes, 19, R. Diceto, ii. 85, _Gesta_, 127, and R. Howden, iii.
[520] It seems to have been really another beacon-tower or pharos, placed on the island—like the tower on the Sicilian mainland opposite Scylla, where Richard had first landed—to give warning of the proximity of Charybdis; see _Gesta_, 158.
[521] _Gesta_, 127; R. Devizes, 19.
[522] Cf. _Gesta_, _l.c._, and _Est._, ll. 627-44; the date is from the former. R. Devizes, 22, seems to make it October 2, but his whole account of the matter is fantastic, while that of the _Gesta_ is in close accord with the eye-witness Ambrose, the poet of the _Estoire_.
[523] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[524] _Ib._, 138; see Archer’s note on them, _Crusade of Richard I_, 31.
[525] _Gesta_, 128; R. Devizes, 22, 23; _Est._, ll. 649-53.
[526] _Est._, ll. 654-67.
[527] _Gesta_, 128; for Hugh the Brown cf. R. Diceto, ii. 85, _Est._, ll. 717-20, _Itin._ 161, and R. Devizes, 23.
[528] _Est._, ll. 683-5.
[529] _Ib._, ll. 721-36.
[530] _Ib._, ll. 689-701, 779-84.
[531] _Gesta_, 129.
[532] “Li reis fud un des premerains Qui osast entrer en la vile; Puis i entrerent bien dis mile,” Est., ll. 801-4. The _Itinerarium_, 163, says: “Primus civitatem intravit ipse dux et praevius,” and describes the entrance as effected “per posternam quandam quam rex Anglorum, secunda die adventus sui ad cautelam futurorum circuiens cum duobus sociis, quasi neglectam a civibus perpenderat” (162, 163). This is quite in accord with the character of Richard, who as we shall see later was in the habit of doing his own scouting; and the attack could hardly have been so successful unless some preparations for it had been made beforehand. Still, as the writer of the _Itinerarium_ does not in this part of his work speak as an eye-witness, and the one writer who does so speak—Ambrose—does not give this detail, I prefer to place it only in a footnote. Richard of Devizes, 23, says the town gates were broken down “admoto ariete dicto citius.” But he was certainly not there, and his whole account of the doings at Messina is too full of long speeches to be altogether trustworthy.
[533] “Plus tost eurent il pris Meschines C’uns prestres n’ad dit ses matines,” _Est._, ll. 809, 810. Cf. _Itin._, 163.
[534] R. Devizes, 24.
[535] _Est._, ll. 811-18.
[536] _Ib._, ll. 823-61; R. Howden, iii. 58. Howden’s phrase “rex Angliae signa sua deposuit” probably means only that Richard’s banners were placed beneath Philip’s in token of the feudal relation between the kings.
[537] _Est._, ll. 844-8.
[538] _Ib._, ll. 827-30.
[539] _Itin._, 166.
[540] _Gesta_, 129.
[541] _Ib._, 132.
[542] _Est._, ll. 867-86; _Itin._, 165, 166.
[543] _Est._, ll. 913-32; cf. _Itin._, 167.
[544] _Gesta_, 133.
[545] _Ib._, 138.
[546] _Est._, ll. 937, 938.
[547] _Gesta_, _l.c._; R. Devizes, 25; _Est._, ll. 939, 940.
[548] “Que ja a lui [_i. e._ Tancred] ne plaideroit, E que il se porchaceroit.” _Est._, ll. 941-50.
[549] _Est._, ll. 951-73.
[550] _Ib._, ll. 891-5.
[551] Rigord, 106.
[552] _Est._, ll. 977-1000; _Gesta_, 133-6; _Itin._, 169; R. Diceto, ii. 85; R. Devizes, 24, 25.
[553] Letter of Richard in _Gesta_, 133.
[554] Letters of Richard to Tancred and to the Pope, in _Gesta_, 133-8.
[555] _Gesta_, 136.
[556] Richard in both his letters cited above acknowledges the receipt of 20,000 ounces of gold as the dowry of Arthur’s betrothed. We shall see that the other sum, though the letters do not mention it, was paid also.
[557] _Est._, ll. 1049-52; _Itin._, 169, 170. Rigord (106), on the other hand, declares it was “thanks to King Philip’s intervention and efforts” that Tancred and Richard were reconciled—which is perhaps true in a sense, but not the sense in which Philip’s panegyrist meant it—and complains that of the forty thousand ounces of gold Philip “had only the third part, when he ought to have had half.”
[558] _Gesta_, 129-32.
[559] _Est._, ll. 1053-74; _Itin._, 171, 172. In the printed edition of the _Estoire_, line 1062 reads thus: “Richarz qui n’est aver ne chinches.” If _est_ be really the reading of the MS., it of course places beyond all doubt the correctness of M. Gaston Paris’s assertion that the poet “a certainement écrit avant la mort de Richard” (introd., p. 1.). But M. Paris does not cite this line in support of his assertion, and in his modern French version of the poem he renders the line “Richard, qui _n’était_ pas chiche ni avare” (p. 347). We are therefore at present left in doubt whether _n’est_ be not here a misprint for _n’ert_.
[560] _Gesta_, 157.
[561] _Ib._, 146, 147.
[562] _Est._, ll. 1080-1108; cf. _Gesta_, 150.
[563] _Gesta_, 150, 151.
[564] See above, p. 79.
[565] _Gesta_, 155-7.
[566] Rigord, 107.
[567] _Est._, ll. 1145-8.
[568] _Gesta_, 157; they are there said to have gone to Brindisi. February 27 that year was Ash Wednesday; possibly Richard had hoped they would arrive in time for the marriage to take place before Lent.
[569] Rigord, 107.
[570] So says _Itin._, 170, 171; in the _Gesta_, 158, he is said to have gone “per consilium regis Franciae,” which from the sequel does not seem very likely.
[571] _Gesta_, 158, 159.
[572] _Ib._, 159, 160.
[573] Charter of Philip, in _Fœdera_, I. i. 54, dated “March 1190,” the French year beginning on Lady day.
[574] “Tertio kalendas Aprilis, sabbato,” _Gesta_, 161; “die Sabbati post Annunciationem B. Mariae,” _Itin._, 175; _i. e._, Saturday, March 30. In p. 177, however, the author of the _Itinerarium_ says Richard sailed on the seventeenth day after Philip’s departure; which, as all authorities (this same writer included, _l.c._) date Richard’s departure from Messina on the Wednesday before Easter, _i. e._, April 10, ought to mean that Philip sailed on Lady day itself. R. Diceto, ii. 91, makes him sail “quarto kalendas Aprilis,” _i. e._, March 29; or, according to another MS., “tertio kalendas Aprilis,” agreeing with _Gesta_. This latter authority says (161) that Philip reached Acre on the twenty-second day of his voyage, viz. Saturday in Easter week, _i. e._, April 20. Rigord, 108, dates his arrival Easter Even (April 13).
[575] _Gesta_, 157.
[576] Cf. _ib._, 161, and _Est._, ll. 1135-40, 1153-9.
[577] _Gesta_, 162; _Est._, ll. 1186-90; _Itin._, 177; R. Diceto, ii. 91.
[578] One hundred “naves” and 14 “buccae,” R. Devizes, 17. This writer, it must be remembered, supposed the king to have joined his fleet at Marseille and coasted along with it thence to Messina, picking up more ships as he went; but as we have seen, this is an error.
[579] R. Diceto, ii. 86, makes it 219, viz. 156 “naves,” 24 “buccae,” and 39 “galeae”; the _Gesta_, 162, make it 203, being 150 “magnae naves” and 53 “galeae”; R. Devizes, 46, reckons the fleet at its leaving Messina as comprising 180 “naves,” “buccae,” and “dromundi” (thus tallying with R. Diceto), besides the “galeae” of which he does not state the number.
[580] Cf. the description of twelfth century _galeae_ in W. Tyr., lib. xiv. c. 20, with that in _Itin._, 80.
[581] R. Devizes, 17.
[582] R. Devizes, 46.
[583] _Est._, ll. 1179-85, 1200; _Itin._, 176, 177.
[584] “Devant siglot li reis meismes,” _Est._, l. 1259.
[585] _Itin._, 177.
[586] “Prés de Vïaires,” _Est._, l. 1216; probably, as M. Gaston Paris says, Cape Spartivento, the eastern point of Calabria.
[587] _Est._, ll. 1202-28.
[588] R. Devizes, 46.
[589] _Itin._, 178.
[590] _Est._, ll. 1233-60.
[591] _Ib._, ll. 1261-7.
[592] _Ib._, ll. 1268-1312.
[593] _Ib._, ll. 1377-1400.
[594] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 105, _Est._, ll. 1401, 1402, and _Itin._, 184, which alone gives the date.
[595] R. Devizes, 47.
[596] _Itin._, 184-7; cf. _Est._, ll. 1403-25.
[597] _Itin._, 187, 188.
[598] _Est._, ll. 1315-34, 1349-51.
[599] _Ib._, ll. 1449-72. Cf. _Itin._, 189. We need not trouble ourselves about the speeches in _Gesta_, 163, and R. Howden, ii. 106.
[600] _Est._, ll. 1479-95; _Itin._, 189. Cf. R. Howden, iii. 107.
[601] R. Devizes, 47.
[602] “Estions mis es bargettes Qui esteient mult petitettes” _Est._, ll. 1505, 1506.
[603] _Est._, ll. 1473-4, 1495-1564; _Itin._, 180-91.
[604] _Itin._, 191.
[605] _Est._, ll. 1565-1700; cf. _Itin._, 192-4, _Gesta_, 163, 164, and R. Howden, iii. 107, 108.
[606] _Est._, ll. 1335-45. Philip reached Acre April 13 according to Rigord, 108; Saturday in Easter week, April 20, according to _Gesta_, 161.
[607] “Rex ad omnia promptissimus, ne dicam praesumptuosissimus,” _Itin._, 195.
[608] _Ib._
[609] _Est._, ll. 1701-45; _Itin._, 195, 196.
[610] _Est._, ll. 1749-53, and _Itin._, 196, say Richard had now forty galleys, including the five Cypriotes.
[611] _Est._, ll. 1761-75, 1791-97; cf. _Itin._, 196, 197.
[612] _Itin._, 197, 198.
[613] _Est._, ll. 1777-90, 1813-18.
[614] Called “Ebetines” by Ambrose, _Est._, l. 1967.
[615] The later Deudamours, now Audimo, in the interior.
[616] See _Gestes des Chiprois_, 514.
[617] _Est._, ll. 1833-2056; cf. _Itin._, 199-203, _Gesta_, 166, and R. Howden, iii. 109-11.
[618] The “fifteen days” come from _Est._, ll. 2061-4, and _Itin._, 203. The _Gesta_, 167, and R. Howden, iii. 110, lengthen the campaign, placing Richard’s marriage, May 12, in the middle of it instead of before its beginning. They date Isaac’s surrender Whitsun Eve, June 1; the _Itin._, 203, makes it Friday, May 31.
[619] _Est._, ll. 2065-82.
[620] See the complaints of a contemporary Cypriote (Greek) writer, in _Itin._, introd. clxxxvi.
[621] _Gesta_, 168; cf. R. Howden, iii. 111, 112.
[622] _Est._, ll. 2067-8.
[623] _Gesta_, 167.
[624] _Est._, ll. 2101-5.
[625] _Ib._, ll. 2087, 2088; _Itin._, 204.
[626] _Est._, ll. 2089-92; _Itin._, _l.c._
[627] _Gesta_, 168; R. Howden, iii. 112. The latter absurdly says the queens with the Maid of Cyprus and the greater part of the fleet reached Acre on the day of Isaac’s submission, _i. e._, June 1. It is quite clear that the whole fleet, with king, queens, and all, sailed on June 5.
[628] R. Diceto, ii. 93.
[629] _Est._, ll. 2129-41; cf. _Itin._, 208.
[630] R. Devizes, 49.
[631] _Est._, ll. 2140-60.
[632] “Come si ço fust ovre de fee,” _Est._, l. 2162.
[633] _Est._, ll. 2185-275; cf. _Itin._, 205-9, and the brief accounts in _Gesta_, 168, 169, R. Howden, iii. 112, and R. Diceto, ii. 93, 94. R. Devizes, 94, absurdly says Richard had 1300 men drowned, “reservando ducentos.”
[634] _Est._, ll. 2142-9; _Itin._, 205; R. Diceto, ii. 93; Bohadin (_Recueil Hist. Croisades, Hist. Orientaux_, iii.), 220, 221.
[635] Bohadin, _l.c._
[636] _Est._, ll. 2165-84; _Itin._, 206. The brief accounts in _Gesta_ and R. Howden say nothing of the serpents; R. Diceto, _l.c._, mentions among the contents of the ship “serpentium ignitorum plena vasa plurima”; I have thought it right to adopt the interpretation of the “serpents” which these words imply, although a curious question seems to be suggested by comparing the story with an account in the _Morning Post_ of August 14, 1914, of a captured German liner whose cargo is there said to have included “about sixty alligators and reptiles.”
[637] Bohadin, 221.
[638] _Est._, ll. 2194-5.
[639] Bohadin, 221.
[640] _Est._, ll. 2305-8.
[641] _Gesta_, 168; R. Howden, iii. 112. These writers say Richard camped outside the city, and place the affair of the dromond on the next day, June 7. But the _Estoire_ distinctly locates the meeting with the dromond between Beyrout and Sidon. R. Diceto, ii. 94, dates it June 6, which is doubtless correct. Bohadin’s date, June 11 (p. 220), is impossible. Ambrose goes on to say that after the wind changed the king “jut devant Sor cil nuitie” (l. 2308); for which the _Itin._ has “proxima nocte ante Tyrum fixis anchoris classis persistebat” (p. 210).
[642] _Est._, ll. 2309-12.
[643] Ibn Djobeïr, _Recueil, Hist. Orientaux_, iii. 450.
[644] _Ib._
[645] See descriptions in Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 373, and _Crusades_, 317, 318.
[646] The _Est._, ll. 2753, 2754, says four hundred knights and seven thousand foot. The _Itin._, 61, says seven hundred knights, besides other fighting men, and that with these “non prorsus ad novem millia robur numeratum excrevit.”
[647] “Un samedi al seir,” _Est._, l. 2372; date from _Itin._, 211, R. Diceto, ii. 94, _Gesta_, 169.
[648] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” _Est._, l. 2310.
[649] _Est._, ll. 2312-24; cf. _Itin._, 210, 211.
[650] _Gesta_, 169; R. Howden, iii. 113.
[651] _Itin._, 211.
[652] _Est._, ll. 4575-88; _Itin._, 213, 214.
[653] R. Devizes, 50.
[654] _Gesta_, 170.
[655] R. Devizes, _l.c._
[656] _Est._, ll. 4610-16; _Itin._, 214, 215.
[657] R. Devizes, 50, 51.
[658] _Est._, ll. 4605-8; _Itin._, 214; cf. _Gesta_, 170, and see M. Gaston Paris’s remarks in his introduction to _Est._, p. lxxiii.
[659] _Est._, ll. 4609-88, _Itin._, 215, 216, Bohadin, 222. The dates are from Bohadin, whose narrative is by far the clearest; the western writers have confused the two assaults, and the date in the _Itinerarium_ is impossible.
[660] _Gesta_, 170; R. Howden, iii. 113.
[661] _Est._, l. 4808; _Itin._, 220.
[662] Bohadin, 222-4, 227, 228.
[663]
“Car nus reis n’iert mielz entechies Fors d’une teche qu’il aveit, Cele que _nul mal ne saveit_; Cele que l’em clame simplesse.” _Est._, ll. 9112-15.
[664] Ibn Alathir; _Recueil des Hist. des Croisades, Hist. Orient._, II, i. 58. Cf. Ernoul, _Chronique_, 181-3.
[665] “Vir Leviannigena,” R. Devizes, 52; the reference is evidently to Isaiah xxvii. 1.
[666] _Gesta_, 170. Bohadin, 225, gives the date of Conrad’s departure for Tyre as “Monday 30 Jomada 1.” As 30 Jomada 1 (_i. e._, June 25) that year was Tuesday, he must mean either Monday 24 or Tuesday 25.
[667] _Gesta_, 170, 171.
[668] _Itin._, 122.
[669] “Post multum vero temporis,” _Gesta_, 171; but as we have seen that Conrad went to Tyre on June 24 or 25, and we shall see that he was back again at Acre early in July, the writer must surely have meant “non multum.”
[670] _Gesta_, 171; R. Howden, iii. 114.
[671] See lists in _Est._, ll. 4705-35, and _Itin._, 217, 218.
[672] _Gesta_, 173; _Est._, ll. 4815-34, 4867-71; _Itin._, 222.
[673] _Gesta_, 173; R. Howden, iii. 117.
[674] Bohadin, 229, 230; _Est._, ll. 4841-63.
[675] _Gesta_, 174; Bohadin, 230.
[676] Bohadin, _l.c._
[677] According to one version, they implicitly refused it by requiring, in addition, other conditions such as the garrison had not power to accept without Saladin’s consent, which he was quite certain not to give; _Gesta_, _l.c._, followed by R. Howden, iii. 171. Cf. Bohadin, 233.
[678] Cf. Bohadin, 234, with _Gesta_, _l.c._
[679] _Est._, ll. 4927-42; cf. _Itin._, 224, 225.
[680] _Gesta_, 175; cf. _Est._, ll. 4943-7, and _Itin._, 225.
[681] _Est._, ll. 4948-5040; _Itin._, 225-8; date from _Gesta_, 174.
[682] _Gesta_, 175.
[683] “Le Balafré.”
[684] See the conflicting accounts in _Itin._, 229, _Gesta_, 175, and R. Howden, iii. 118, 119.
[685] Bohadin, 230, 235.
[686] See the various accounts of these negotiations in Bohadin, 235-7; Ibn Alathyr, _Recueil des Hist. des Crois., Hist. Orient._, II, i. 44-7; other Arab authorities collected in Abu Shama, _ib._, V, 22-5; _Gesta_ and R. Howden, _ll.cc._
[687] _Gesta_, 177, 178.
[688] _Ib._, 178.
[689] See Note II at end.
[690] _Itin._, 233.
[691] R. Devizes, 52.
[692] _Itin._, 233, 234. According to Bohadin, French ed. p. 238, this duty was entrusted to Conrad; the passage is omitted in the Leyden MS. edited by Schultens, but is reproduced in an emphatic form by Abu Shama (_Recueil, Hist. Orient._, V, 26).
[693] _Gesta_, 179, 180; _Itin._, 234.
[694] Bohadin, 237, 242; _Gesta_, 179. The _Estoire_, ll. 5217-19, says the Franks were to have as hostages “Les plus hauz Turs e les plus sages Que l’em poreit en Acre eslire,” and does not specify what was arranged as to the garrison. But from the sequel it is quite clear that the hostages really consisted of the whole body of the garrison.
[695] Bohadin, 238. Cf. Ibn Alathyr, 47.
[696] He had sent his baggage thither on the night of the 12th, Bohadin, 239; a fact which misled the author of the _Itinerarium_ (234) into saying that Saladin himself retired “eadem nocte sequenti proxima post ingressionem nostram.” The _Gesta_, 181, agrees with Bohadin in placing Saladin’s own removal on July 14.
[697] Bohadin, _l.c._
[698] _Ib._, 239, 240; cf. _Gesta_, 180.
[699] _Gesta_, 181, 182.
[700] _Ib._, 182. Cf. _Itin._, 234.
[701] See Note I at end.
[702] Otto of S. Blaise says of Richard: “Praeda communi universorum sudore adquisita inter suos tantum distributa reliquos privavit, in seque odia omnium concitavit. Omnibus enim fortiori militum robore praestabat, et ideo pro velle suo cuncta disponens reliquos principes parvipendebat” (Pertz, xx. 323). “Reliquos” seems here to include Philip. Even Rigord does not go so far as this. It is certain that Philip got his due share of the prisoners; and there is no reason to doubt that he also got, as the English writers say, his due share of the city and its contents.
[703] _Gesta_, 182, 183.
[704] _Ib._, 184; _Est._, ll. 5050-61; _Itin._, 235, 236.
[705] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[706] _Itin._, 236.
[707] _Gesta_, _l.c._; _Est._, ll. 5054, 5055.
[708] _Gesta_, _l.c._; _Est._, ll. 5056, 5057, 5062, 5063; _Itin._, 235. Geoffrey only “held” his fiefs in the sense that he was legally seised of them; they were Joppa, Caesarea, and Ascalon, all in the enemy’s hands. Conrad’s were Tyre, Sidon, and Beyrout.
[709] _Gesta_, 184.
[710] R. Diceto, ii. 95.
[711] _Est._, ll. 5305-28; _Itin._, 238; _Gesta_, _l.c._; in this last authority the clause about forty days’ notice after Richard’s return is omitted, and the date of the oath is given, July 29.
[712] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[713] Rigord, 118.
[714] _Est._, ll. 5333-4; _Itin._, 239; _Gesta_, 185. The latter make the date July 31; the _Itinerarium_ makes it August 1.
[715] Rigord, 117; date from R. Howden, iii. 126.
[716] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx, 323.
[717] _Gesta_, 185, 186.
[718] Bohadin, 238-40.
[719] _Gesta_, 180.
[720] _Itin._, 232.
[721] A certain number of the captive Christians of rank were to be chosen by name by the two kings. See Note II at end.
[722] Bohadin, 240.
[723] From 17 Jomada II (= July 12) to 18 Rajab.
[724] The writer of the _Gesta_, 187, gives the appointed day as August 9; no doubt imagining the “month” to mean four weeks.
[725] Rigord, 116.
[726] _Gesta_, 185. If the prisoners were really as numerous as our authorities represent, the whole of Philip’s share could hardly have gone, with him and his suite, in two galleys. Probably he took the picked ones only.
[727] _Ib._, 186, 187; _Est._, ll. 5414-86; _Itin._, 242, 243.
[728] _Gesta_, 187.
[729] Bohadin, 241, 242.
[730] The writer of the _Gesta_, 187, who gives the date for the original first term as August 9, says it was on that day postponed “in diem undecimum post illum.” It is, however, clear from Bohadin that the postponement cannot have been agreed upon till after the 11th; and it is equally clear from the sequel that the term as ultimately fixed cannot have been later than the 20th. This would be the fortieth day from the surrender—which is what the writer of the _Gesta_ asserts in p. 179 to have been the term originally fixed for payment of the whole ransom. Evidently he is correct in his implied date, and wrong only in his mode of arriving at it.
[731] _Gesta_, 188, 189. “Sui cum eo” in p. 189 must surely be an error for either “sui cum me,” or, much more probably, “mei cum eo.”
[732] The _Est._, ll. 5613-46. and _Itin._, 245, place Richard’s encampment outside the walls and the skirmish or skirmishes which followed it after the slaughter of the garrison, _i. e._ after August 20. But the whole narrative of the surrender of Acre and the proceedings there is in the _Gesta_ arranged with such minute chronological order that it can hardly fail to be founded on documentary authority so far as its dates are concerned, while the chronology of both _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_, just at this period, is vague and confused in the extreme.
[733] Bohadin, 242, 243; cf. _Gesta_, 189; R. Howden, iii. 127, 128; _Est._, ll. 5513-39; _Itin._, 243; R. Diceto, ii. 94; R. Devizes, 52. All the authorities, Bohadin included, who give a date at all make it Tuesday, August 20, except the _Itinerarium_, which unaccountably says “die Veneris proximo post Assumptionem Beatae Mariae,” _i. e._ Friday, August 16.
[734] Letter of Richard in R. Howden, iii. 131.
[735] Bohadin, 243. As to the way in which the Frank soldiers had treated the corpses, the statements in _Gesta_, 189 (copied in R. Howden, iii. 128) must be compared with Bohadin, _l.c._, whence it appears, first, that whatever was done to the bodies did not shock him, for he makes no comment on it; and secondly, that the Saracens who went to look at them next morning could quite well have taken them away then, if they had chosen to do so.
[736] Bohadin, 242.
[737] “Quibus sub hac conditione vita concessa est, si Saladinus pro redemptione eorum 70,000 bisantiorum dare vellet,” R. Coggeshall, 32. “Qui [Caracois et Mestocus] ... cum per interpretes deditionem urbis promitterent et capitum redemtionem, rex Anglorum volebat viribus vincere desperatos, volebat et victos pro redemtione corporum capita solvere, sed agente rege Francorum indulta est eis tantum vita cum indemnitate membrorum, si post deditionem civitatis et dationem omnium quae possidebant Crux Dominica redderetur.” R. Devizes, 51.
[738] _Gesta_, 179, followed by R. Howden, iii. 121.
[739] See the curious statement in a letter written about this time by El-Fadhel, one of Saladin’s secretaries, to the Divan at Bagdad: “The number of barbaric tongues among these people from the west is outrageous, and outdoes everything that can be imagined. Sometimes, when we take a prisoner, we can only communicate with him through a series of interpreters—one translates the Frank’s words to another, who translates them again to a third.” Abu Shama, _Hist. des Crois._, iv. 15.
[740] “Si fud la chose esguardee A un concile ou assemblerent Li halt home, qui esguarderent Que des Sarazins ocireient Le plus,” etc., _Est._, ll. 5524-7; cf. _Itin._, 243. The _Gesta_, 189, and R. Howden, iii. 128, say expressly that the duke of Burgundy caused the French king’s share of the prisoners to be slaughtered likewise.
[741] “E dont furent li cop vengie De quarels d’arbaleste a tor, Les granz merciz al Creator!” _Est._, ll. 5540-2; cf. _Itin._, _l.c._
[742] Extract from Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, _Hist. des Crois._, iv. 277, 278. It is probably to this that Bohadin alludes when he speaks of “reprisals” as one of the motives to which the massacre at Acre was attributed; and it is he who adds (p. 243) that it was also ascribed to Richard’s sense of the risk of leaving so many prisoners behind him. The story told in the _Gesta_, 189, and R. Howden, iii. 127, that Saladin had wantonly provoked the retaliation by beheading on August 18 all the Christian prisoners who should have been exchanged for his own men next day, is obviously a fiction; and it is clear that the leaders of the host were not even misled by a false report, for the _Estoire_ and the _Itinerarium_ make no mention of any such thing.
[743] _Est._, ll. 5543-5, _Itin._, 244.
[744] _Est._, ll. 5384-7; _Itin._, 240; cf. Bohadin, 244.
[745] _Gesta_, 190.
[746] _Est._, ll. 5550-65; _Itin._, 244.
[747] _Est._, l. 5675; _Itin._, 247, 248. This would include three hundred (or five hundred, R. Howden) Christian prisoners who were in Acre when it was surrendered. _Gesta_, 178; R. Howden, iii. 120.
[748] _Gesta_, 190; R. Howden, iii. 128. Bohadin, 244, gives the date of the departure, 29 Rajab (= Thursday, August 22).
[749] _Est._, ll. 5677-702; _Itin._, 248.
[750] _Est._, ll. 5704-14; _Itin._, _l.c._
[751] Bohadin, 244-6.
[752] This is the date given by the _Est._, ll. 5721-33, and _Itin._, 249. Bohadin (244), Ibn Alathyr (_Recueil_, II. ii. 48), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, _ib._, iv. 33) say 1 Jaban (= August 24). From this point to the Crusaders’ departure from Caesarea, I follow Bohadin’s reckoning for the movements of Saladin, on whom he was in attendance, and the reckoning of the two Frank chroniclers of the Crusade (the writers of _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_) for the movements of the host, of which one of them is universally acknowledged to have been a member, and I personally believe the other to have been so likewise. We shall find that from August 30 to September 6, 1191, Bohadin’s dates are confused; a like confusion may have affected them for the whole period from August 24, but of this we cannot be sure.
[753] _Est._, ll. 5751-95; _Itin._, 249-51; cf. Bohadin, 244-5.
[754] _Itin._, 251.
[755] _Est._, ll. 5800-60; _Itin._, 251-2.
[756] The difficulty is complicated by the contradictory descriptions of the site in _Est._, ll. 5889-90, and 5935, and in _Itin._, 253, 254. The present native name of Athlit is Khirbet Dustrey. One is tempted to suggest that “Destreitz” might be an attempt to reproduce the sound of, and give a meaning to, this native appellation; but as an Arabic scholar has been good enough to answer a question on the subject by informing me that “it is quite impossible to trace the word Dustrey” in that language, one is driven to conclude that the corruption has taken place in the opposite direction, and that “Dustrey” is a modern Arab form of the old French “Destreitz” (Latin “Districtum).”
[757] _Est._, ll. 5863-92, 5935-42; _Itin._, 253, 254.
[758] Bohadin, 245, 246.
[759] Its Arabic name is Nahr es Zerka, “blue” or “grey river.”
[760] Bohadin, 247-50.
[761] _Est._, ll. 5981-4; _Itin._, 256.
[762] _Est._, ll. 5944-6004; _Itin._, 255-6. The date of the arrival of the host at Caesarea has to be made out by counting the days’ marches and halts, as given by these two writers, since the departure from Acre. A question arises whether Ambrose’s “deus jours de sejour” (l. 5936) at Casal des Destreitz means two whole days and three nights, _i. e._, August 27-30, or two nights and one whole day besides the day of arrival there, _i. e._, August 27-29. The word in the _Itinerarium_—“biduo”—does not help to a decision; but Bohadin does help, though indirectly. He says (250) the Franks reached Caesarea on “Friday 6 Jaban.” This date is self-contradictory; the 6 Jaban (= August 29) was Thursday, and from this point to 14 Jaban (= September 6) all Bohadin’s days of the week are one day in advance of his days of the month. On reaching the last date of the series, however, we shall find from other evidence that the day of the week, not that of the month, is the correct one all through; therefore the “two days” are to be taken in the widest sense, and the entry into Caesarea was on Friday, August 30.
[763] Bohadin, 250, 251; for the date, which he gives as 8 Jaban (= August 31), see preceding note. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, 34, gives it correctly, 9 Jaban = September 1.
[764] Bohadin, 251, 252.
[765] Bohadin, 253.
[766] _Est._, ll. 6039-46; _Itin._, 257.
[767] Bohadin, 255.
[768] _Est._, ll. 6047-64; _Itin._, 258. Oddly enough, Richard soon afterwards forgot the date of his own wound, for in a letter inserted in R. Howden, iii. 130, he says it occurred on the third day before Saladin’s defeat (at Arsuf), _i. e._ on September 5. We shall see that this date is impossible, because on September 5 there was no fighting at all.
[769] _Est._, ll. 6071-90; _Itin._, 258, 259.
[770] Bohadin, 255-7.
[771] _Est._, ll. 6092-111; _Itin._, 259. Bohadin, 257, describes the site as “a place called Birka” (the Pond, or Marsh), “whence the sea was visible.” It is probably one of the streamlets which, when not dried up or choked up with sand, run into the Nahr el Falik, a little creek about eight miles south of the mouth of the Salt River.
[772] _Est._, ll. 6114-17; _Itin._, _l.c._
[773] Bohadin, 258, calls it “Saturday 14 Jaban” (= September 6), but all the Frank writers show that the date of the battle was really Saturday September 7 = 15 Jaban.
[774] _Est._, ll. 6191-4, 6204-8; _Itin._, 261.
[775] Cf. Bohadin, 258, _Est._, l. 6211, and _Itin._, 262 and 274; the passage “Sicque et in parte ... fixere tentoria” in this latter page seems to be out of place, and to represent Bohadin’s words (_l.c._) “the foremost of the Frank footmen reached the gardens of Arsuf.”
[776] _Est._, ll. 6212-51; _Itin._, 262, 263.
[777] _Est._, ll. 6157-64; _Itin._, 260, 261.
[778] According to _Est._, ll. 6427-30, he was a “compainz” of Richard from England.
[779] _Est._, ll. 6255-472; _Itin._, 264-9.
[780] Bohadin, 258.
[781] _Est._, ll. 6475-92; cf. _Itin._, 269, 270.
[782] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6532-616, _Itin._, 273, 274, and Bohadin, 259-60.
[783] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6621-38, _Itin._, 274, 275, Richard’s letters in R. Howden, iii. 130-2, and Bohadin, 261. Other accounts of the battle are in _Gesta_, 191, and R. Howden, iii. 128, 129; both with a wrong date and some other obvious errors.
[784] Letter in R. Howden, _l.c._ 131.
[785] Bohadin, 261.
[786] _Ib._
[787] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6895-902, and _Itin._, 281, with Bohadin, 261.
[788] _Est._, ll. 6683-734, 6903-25; _Itin._, 276, 277, 281, 282; Bohadin, 261-2—the last again with wrong days of the month.
[789] _Est._, ll. 6925-35; _Itin._, 281, 282.
[790] Bohadin, 262, gives the date of Saladin’s arrival at Ramlah as 17 Jaban (= Monday, September 9); Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, _Recueil_, v. 40) makes it 19 Jaban (= September 11).
[791] Bohadin, 263; cf. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, v. 40-1, 43.
[792] Bohadin, 263-7. He says (266) that he heard one of the men engaged in the demolition tell Saladin that they had dug through a wall “a spear’s length” in thickness. What was the length of a Saracen spear?
[793] Bohadin, 265, says 20 Shaban = September 12; but probably he is a day behind as usual.
[794] _Ib._, 265, 266.
[795] _Est._, ll. 6941-7034; cf. _Itin._, 283.
[796] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 130.
[797] Bohadin, 267.
[798] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 132.
[799] The salutation of the letter is merely “N. dilecto et fideli suo,” without any name.
[800] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 131, 132.
[801] _Est._, ll. 7038-58.
[802] _Ib._, ll. 7051-60; _Itin._, 285. For locality see note in index to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Seint Abacuc.”
[803] _Est._, ll. 7061-6; _Itin._, _l.c._
[804] Bohadin, 270.
[805] Natroun is the form used by Bohadin; but Quatremère, _Hist. des Sultans Mamelouks de l’Egypte_, t. ii, I^{ère} partie, p. 256, no. 10, says, “La forme la plus régulière de ce nom est Alatroun,” and quotes a MS. Arabic geographical lexicon which gives the name thus. It is better known in the corrupt form Latroun. The place seems to be identical with a ruined castle which the Christian inhabitants of the land told early pilgrims was the abode of the Penitent Thief. This raises a question whether the story was derived from Alatroun by way of _Latroun_ and _latro_, or _latro_ gave rise to Alatroun. Quatremère inclines to the latter view.
[806] Bohadin, 270, 271.
[807] On October 13; Bohadin, 273.
[808] _Est._, ll. 7067-82; _Itin._, 286.
[809] Cf. _Est._, ll. 7075-7, with Bohadin, 279, who says some Frankish ships with, “it was said,” five hundred men on board were captured by the Turkish fleet on October 26.
[810] _Itin._, _l.c._
[811] _Est._, ll. 7083-175; _Itin._, 286-8.
[812] Bohadin, 274, 275.
[813] Bohadin, 277-80.
[814] _Itin._, 289.
[815] _Est._, ll. 7207-32; _Itin._, 290.
[816] “Car si a vos mescheiet E qui issi fust escheiet, Cristente sereit tuee,” _Est._, ll. 7341-3.
[817] _Est._, ll. 7233-66; _Itin._, 291-4.
[818] Bohadin, 284, 285.
[819] _Ib._, 286.
[820] _Ib._
[821] _Itin._, 296.
[822] Bohadin, _l.c._; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 53.
[823] Ibn Alathyr, _l.c._
[824] Bohadin, 286, 287.
[825] In the French edition of Bohadin the date is given as “le 11 Chouwal,” _i. e._ November 1. But evidently this is impossible; it must mean 21 Shawal = November 11.
[826] Bohadin, 287-91. The accounts of these negotiations given in _Est._, ll. 7370-428, and _Itin._, 295-7, are obviously less trustworthy.
[827] Bohadin, 292, says he went to Tell el Jezer, _i. e._ “the Hill of the Bridge,” Stubbs, note 1 to _Itin._, 298; possibly a bridge over the little river that runs through the Wady Ali, between Natroun and Amwas. The Frank chroniclers say he went “dreit al Toron as Chevalers,” _i. e._ Natroun, _Est._, ll. 7456-62; “versus Darum,” _Itin._, 298. Stubbs in a note suggested that “Darum” here was a phonetic error for “Toron”; this the _Estoire_ practically proves; and I venture to think the passage furnishes a little bit of evidence on another question, for if the Latin “translator” had “al Toron as Chevalers” before his eyes, how came he to misrender it “versus Darum”? whereas if Ambrose found “Darum” in his friend’s notes, and noticed that it was a mistake, he would of course correct it in his own version of the story.
[828] See Note III at end.
[829] _Est._, ll. 7429-41; cf. _Itin._, 297.
[830] _Est._, ll. 7471-6; cf. _Itin._, 298.
[831] _Est._, ll. 7477-8; _Itin._, 299, “verum non in deliciis.”
[832] Bohadin, 292.
[833] The later high road to Jerusalem from Joppa goes by Ramlah, but not by Amwas and Beit Nuba; it passes further south, through the Wady Ali.
[834] _Itin._, 305.
[835] See, _e. g._, the story of the fight in which the Earl of Leicester was nearly lost, _Est._, ll. 7480-604, _Itin._, 300-3.
[836] See Note IV at end.
[837] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 17, with Ibn Alathyr, 54, who makes the day December 22, while Roger makes it the 23rd.
[838] Abu Shama, _Recueil_, V., 49; seemingly from “récit du Cadi,” _i. e._ Bohadin, but the passage does not occur in either the French or the Dutch edition of Bohadin’s work.
[839] _Est._, ll. 7617-25; cf. _Itin._, 303.
[840] “E li Turc qui bien conisseient Le rei Richart e sa baniere E sa vistece e sa maniere,” Est., ll. 7738-40. For “e sa baniere” the _Itin._, 307, has “_ex_ ejus imminente baneria.” Probably _e_ in l. 7739 should be _a_.
[841] _Est._, ll. 7717-60; _Itin._, 306, 307. On the localities mentioned in this incident see Note IV at end.
[842] _Est._, ll. 7627-704; cf. _Itin._, 305.
[843] _Est._, ll. 7705-16; cf. _Itin._, 305, 306.
[844] Place from R. Howden, iii. 179, who gives the date as S. Hilary’s Day, January 13. The _Est._, _l.c._, and _Itin._, 308, say merely that it was after Epiphany.
[845] _Est._, ll. 7761-80; _Itin._, _l.c._
[846] Ibn Alathyr, _Recueil Hist. Orient._, II. i. 55, 56. The comments on the difficulties in the way of an effective blockade which he ascribes to Richard are almost verbally identical with those of the Knights as reported in _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_.
[847] Ibn Alathyr, _l.c._, 55; _Est._, ll. 7841-2; _Itin._, 310. The exact date of the retirement is questionable, owing to the doubt as to the date of the council. Ibn Alathyr (_l.c._) says the host withdrew from Beit Nuba on 20 Dulheggia = January 8; Abu Shama (_Recueil_, V. 49) quotes from “_Récit du Cadi_” a statement that the withdrawal was on 22 Dulheggia (= January 10), but there is no such thing in the printed editions of Bohadin. Perhaps Ibn Alathyr and Roger of Howden may have erred in different ways from making one and the same mistake, viz., assuming that the return to Ramlah took place on the same day as the council, which is not necessarily implied in any of the chronicles, Frank or Mussulman.
[848] _Est._, ll. 7799-810; _Itin._, 309.
[849] _Est._, ll. 7811-42; _Itin._, 310.
[850] Otherwise called Yabneh, Jafna, in older days Jamnia, and, earlier still, Jabneel (Joshua xv. 2).
[851] _Est._, ll. 7843-95; _Itin._, 311, 312. Both these writers say the host spent a night at Ibelin on its way to Ascalon. Imad-ed-Din (_apud_ Abu Shama, 51) says “the Franks marched upon Ascalon on 3 Moharrem,” _i. e._ January 20, the date given in _Itin._, 312, as that of the arrival there. I venture to think that the difficulty suggested by Stubbs (_Itin._, _l.c._, note 2), as to reconciling these dates with the statement in _Itin._, 311, that the duke of Burgundy stayed eight days at the Casal des Plains, is an imaginary one. Those eight days need not be crowded in before the setting out of the rest of the host; the two parties may have gone in opposite directions almost at the same time, since we shall find that they did not come together again until several weeks later.
[852] _Est._ ll. 7967-8077; _Itin._, 315-17.
[853] “Ipse manibus aedificando,” _Itin._, 317. We shall presently find an unimpeachable eye-witness testifying to having seen the king performing a no less arduous manual labour at Darum.
[854] Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 50.
[855] See William of Tyre’s description of Darum: “Castrum in Idumaea (ipsa est Edom) situm, trans torrentem illum qui dicitur Ægypti, qui etiam terminus est Palestinae et praedictae regionis,” lib. xx. c. 19. The earlier frontier—like the later one—was further to the south-west, and the “river of Egypt” then was the Wady el Arish, or, earlier still, another stream yet further westward.
[856] _Est._, ll. 8092-141; cf. _Itin._, 318, 319.
[857] _Est._, ll. 8143-54; _Itin._, 319, 320.
[858] _Est._, ll. 5329-50; _Itin._, 239. R. Coggeshall, 37, says 30,000 bezants.
[859] _Est._, ll. 8160-77; _Itin._, 320, 321.
[860] _Est._, ll. 8177-224; _Itin._, 321, 322.
[861] _Est._, 8225-34; _Itin._, 322, 323. The latter gives the date: “Rex ... postquam Achon pervenerat in crastino Cinerum, postera die,” etc. The morrow of Ash Wednesday 1192 was February 20.
[862] _Est._, ll. 8238-46; _Itin._, 323.
[863] The _Estoire_, ll. 8247-60, has in this passage a hiatus which has to be supplied from _Itin._, 323, 324.
[864] _Itin._, 324; cf. _Est._, ll. 8265-70, where again there is a hiatus.
[865] This is the version of Richard’s proceedings given by Bohadin, 293, who was with Saladin at Jerusalem all the time.
[866] Bohadin, 292, 293.
[867] _Ib._, 293, 294.
[868] _Itin._, 325.
[869] Bohadin, 294.
[870] The _Itin._, 324, says he left Acre on the Tuesday before Easter, _i. e._, March 31.
[871] _Est._, ll. 8325-35; _Itin._, 326.
[872] “De ses Peitevins E de Mansels e de Angevins E des barons de Normandie,” _Est._, ll. 8336-9; of Templars and Hospitaliers, with Count Henry “and many others,” _Itin._, _l.c._
[873] _Est._, ll. 8340-52; _Itin._, 326, 327.
[874] _Est._, ll. 8429-42; _Itin._, 329, 330.
[875] _Est._, ll. 8287-304; _Itin._, 325.
[876] Bohadin, 293. He reckons the captured sheep at a thousand.
[877] _Itin._, 330.
[878] “Post Pascha completum,” _i. e._, after April 12; _Itin._, 333.
[879] _Est._, ll. 8519-646; _Itin._, 333-5.
[880] _Est._, ll. 8650-6, 8715-66; _Itin._, 336, 338.
[881] Bohadin, 297; R. Diceto, ii. 104. Roger of Howden, iii. 181, gives the date as April 27.
[882] Bohadin, 297; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 53.
[883] Bohadin, _l.c._
[884] _Est._, ll. 8879-99; _Itin._, 341; R. Coggeshall, 35.
[885] Ibn Alathyr, 58.
[886] _Est._, ll. 8788-814; _Itin._, 339-41.
[887] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._; R. Howden, iii. 181.
[888] “Encore ne fu çou mie voirs,” Ernoul, 290.
[889] _Livre d’Eracle, Rec. Hist. Croisades, Hist. Occid._, ii. 190-3. William of Newburgh, lib. v. c. 16, and Roger of Wendover, ed. Coxe, iii. 74, 75, give a letter purporting to have been written by the “Old Man” to exculpate Richard from the charge of having contrived Conrad’s death. In William’s version the letter is addressed “principibus et omni populo Christianae religionis,” and professes to have been written spontaneously; in Roger’s version it is addressed to Duke Leopold of Austria, and Roger says (though the letter itself does not say) that it was written at the request of Richard during his imprisonment in Germany. William says, “Has [literas] nimirum se vidisse atque legisse vir fide dignus mihi protestatus est cum regi Francorum Parisius constituto solemniter fuissent oblatae”; he adds that Philip formally accepted the document as proof of Richard’s innocence; and he dates this transaction 1195. The contents of the letter differ slightly in the two versions, but both are substantially in agreement with the accounts in Ernoul and Eracle of the circumstances which led to Conrad’s death. The letter is unquestionably a forgery. It may have been circulated in the East as well as in the West, and the “ultramarine” chroniclers may have taken their story from it; there is, however, also a possibility that both they and the composers of the letter—whoever these may have been—all alike derived their information from a genuine source.
[890] “Li baron de France esteient En lor tentes hors de la vile, Que haut que bas, plus que dis mile; E li haut ensemble parlerent E a la marchise manderent Qu’ele lor rendist la citie Trestut en peis e en quitie En guarde a l’oes le reis de France; E el respondi sanz dotance Que quant li reis la revendreit Que mult volenters li rendreit, Si ainz n’i ad autre seignor.” _Est._, ll. 8912-23. For the last four lines the _Itinerarium_ (342) has: “Quibus ipsa respondit quod quando rex Ricardus ipsam visere veniret, ipsi potius redderet civitatem et nulli alii, sicut dominus suus moriens ei praeciperat.” The context in _Estoire_ clearly shows that by “li reis” in l. 8921 Ambrose meant not Richard but Philip; and it seems most likely that this version is the correct one, although Ambrose, as well as the Latin chronicler, has previously stated that Conrad when dying had bidden Isabel “que la citie ne rendist Fors al cors le rei d’Engleterre Ou al dreit seignor de la terre” (ll. 8858-64)—“ut civitati Tyro conservandae vigilanter intenderet, nec cuiquam hominum resignaret nisi regi Ricardo sive illi quem regnum jure contingebat haereditario,” _Itin._, 340. Whom Conrad can have meant by the last seven words (if indeed he really spoke them) is a puzzle of which I can suggest no solution.
[891] _Est._, ll. 8774-7; _Itin._, 338.
[892] _Est._, ll. 8928-50, 8973-9016; _Itin._, 342, 343, 346, 347.
[893] _Est._, ll. 9021-62; _Itin._, 348, 349. The date of the wedding is given by R. Diceto, ii. 104.
[894] _Est._, ll. 8961-70; _Itin._, 343.
[895] _Itin._, 299.
[896] _Ib._, 344, 345.
[897] _Ib._, 343, 346.
[898] _Est._, ll. 8956-9.
[899] _Est._, ll. 9127-45; _Itin._, 351.
[900] Bohadin, 295, 296, 298.
[901] The _Est._, ll. 9323-4, and _Itin._, 355, however, mention some Genoese and Pisans as taking part in the final storming.
[902] The authorities say merely “un diemaine,” _Est._, l. 9175; “quadam dominica,” _Itin._, 352; but we shall see later that it must have been May 17.
[903] _Est._, ll. 9173-240; _Itin._, 352-4.
[904] Bohadin, 301.
[905] Bohadin’s version (_l.c._) of this is that they asked for time to communicate with Saladin.
[906] _Est._, ll. 9174-368; _Itin._, 354-6; cf. Bohadin, 301. This last, Ibn Alathyr (60), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, 54), date the surrender May 23; as it seems to have been made late in the evening, and the Mohammedan day begins at sunset, this date really agrees with that given by the western writers.
[907] We hear nothing of a taking of Gaza; but Gaza had long ceased to be a place of any military importance. Richard and his companions passed through it on their way back to Ascalon (_Est._, l. 9389, _Itin._, 356), so its Moslem garrison, if it had had one, had evidently been withdrawn.
[908] _Est._, ll. 8369-86; _Itin._, _l.c._
[909] _Itin._, _l.c._
[910] _Est._, ll. 9387-94; _Itin._, 356, 357.
[911] Cf. _Est._, ll. 9395-407, and _Itin._, 357, 358. For Cassaba, see G. Paris, note in Glossary to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Canoie as Estornels.”
[912] _Est._, ll. 9408-32; _Itin._, 358.
[913] The first version is Bohadin’s, 301, 302; the second, that of Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 54. Bohadin calls the castle Mejdel Yaba; in Abu Shama’s compilation the name appears as Mejdel Djenab, but the compiler adds: “This is the name given by El Imad in the _Book of the Conquest_, but in _The Lightning_ we find ‘Mejdel Yaba’”; while the text of Imad-ed-Din published by Count Landsberg has “Mejdel el Habab” (footnote to Abu Shama, _l.c._). Of these Arabic names only one has been located—Mejdel Yaba, called by the Franks Mirabel, which is so far from the Wady el Hesy that it cannot possibly be the place meant (G. Paris, Glossary to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Fiier”). I am indebted to a distinguished Arabic scholar for the information that Mejdel Yaba means “Glory of Yaba,” Mejdel Djenab “Glory of the district,” Mejdel el Habab “Glory of the lover”; and that the Arabic for Castle of Figs or Figtrees would be Kalat-el-Tinat. It is possible that a place bearing one of the three former Arabic names might be called Fig or Figtree Castle by the Franks for some reason quite independent of its native appellation, and that the narratives of the Christian and Moslem writers may be only two different versions of one event; but there is also another possibility. Imad-ed-Din dates the disaster of the Franks at Mejdel Djenab (or Yaba, or El Habab) 14 Jomada I, _i. e._ May 28, the date given by Ambrose and the _Itinerarium_ for the capture of Figtree Castle; but Bohadin says it occurred “when the host had spent the fourteenth day of Jomada I” at El Hesy. This should apparently mean that it took place on the following day, _i. e._ 15 Jomada I = May 29. To me it seems more probable that this version is the correct one, and that the Frank and the Moslem writers are here relating two distinct events, one of which took place on May 28 and the other on May 29. If so, it would not be unnatural that of two expeditions made within such a short period, each party should record only the one which terminated in their own favour.
[914] _Est._, ll. 9433-508; _Itin._, 358-61.
[915] “E dist a sei: S’or ne retornes, Veirement as terre perdue.” _Est._, ll. 9464-5.
[916] Lib. xiv. c. 22.
[917] “Ço fu en juin” (“intrante jam mense Junio,” _Itin._) “Lors s’esmut l’ost de la Canoie Par mi les plains tut contre val Vers Ybelin de l’Ospital, Joste Ebron,” _Est._, ll. 9509-14; _Itin._, 360. Bohadin places this movement a little earlier; after mentioning an event which he dates 17 Jomada I (= May 31) he continues “The enemy meanwhile had moved from El Hesy, and was at the diverging-point of the ways of which one leads to Ascalon, one to Beit Djibrin, another to the tents of Islam” (303). Stubbs (note to _Itin._, 360) suggests Galatia, in Arabic Keratieh, as the place indicated. As Bohadin frequently antedates by a day or two the movements of the Franks, he may have done so in this instance. “El Hesy” here, as in a later passage, seems to stand for the Wady el Hesy as a whole; thus including of course the Canebrake.
[918] _Est._, ll. 9519-52; _Itin._, 361.
[919] _Est._, ll. 9553-680; cf. _Itin._, 361-4. On one passage, omitted in my summary of William’s speech, one would like to have more light. “Remembre te de l’aventure De la riche descomfiture E de Haltfort que rescussis, Que li cuens de Seint Gile assis Aveit, que tu desbaretas E vileinement l’en jetas” (ll. 9609-14). The editors of Bertrand de Born and of the _Estoire_ know nothing of the event here alluded to, and there seems to be no mention of it elsewhere and no clue to its date.
[920] _Est._, ll. 9681-90. The last line is: “Devant les barons d’Escalone.” _Barons_ here is nonsense. G. Paris suggests “bailles,” a possible equivalent for the Latin, “extra pomoeria Ascaloniae foris,” _Itin._, 365.
[921] _Est._, ll. 9692-720; _Itin._, _l.c._, giving the date, June 4.
[922] Bohadin, 299, 300.
[923] _Ib._, 303.
[924] _Est._, ll. 9817-21; _Itin._, 369.
[925] Bohadin, 310.
[926] _Est._, ll. 9813-17; _Itin._, _l.c._
[927] _Est._, ll. 9748-88; _Itin._, 367. “A close Pentecoste, mien escient le samedi,” says Ambrose, l. 9748; the _Itinerarium_ says “Die Dominica, scilicet in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis”; but Bohadin, 303, says 23 Jomada I, which agrees with Ambrose. The French translation of Bohadin has erroneously “8 juin.”
[928] _Est._, ll. 9797-802; Bohadin, 304.
[929] _Itin._, 368; Bohadin, _l.c._
[930] _Est._, ll. 9806-10; _Itin._, _l.c._
[931] _Est._, ll. 9809-13; _Itin._, 368, 369. Bohadin, 304, says the Franks left Natroun and advanced to Beit Nuba on Wednesday, 27 Jomada I; _i. e._ June 10.
[932] Bohadin, 304, 305.
[933] Bohadin, 305. The French translation gives the date as “le 19 de Jomada premier,” which would be June 2. Possibly “19” is a misprint for “29.”
[934] _Est._, ll. 9835-64; _Itin._, 359.
[935] Cf. _Est._, ll. 9885-922, and _Itin._, 371, 372.
[936] _Est._, ll. 9947-10088; Bohadin, _l.c._; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55; all with date June 16; _Itin._, 373, with date June 17.
[937] _Est._, ll. 10140-210; _Itin._, 379-81.
[938] _Est._, ll. 10213-59; _Itin._, 381, 382.
[939] Bohadin, 306.
[940] Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55, says Saladin heard on 9 Jomada II (= Monday, June 22) that the Franks had set out in the night. Ambrose (l. 10304) says merely “Sunday.”
[941] _Est._, ll. 10265-312; _Itin._, 383-5; cf. Bohadin, 306.
[942] Bohadin, 306, 307; cf. Imad-ed-Din, 55, _Est._, ll. 10313-23, and _Itin._, 385.
[943] Bohadin, 307.
[944] Among the Saracens, according to Bohadin (_l.c._), it was reported that one of this second party of scouts was Richard himself, who, disguised as an Arab, made a circuit of the Egyptians’ encampment and then, having found them all sound asleep, rode back and called up his men. Such a thing is by no means impossible; but if it were a fact, it would probably have been known to the Franks, whereas it was evidently not known even as a rumour to Ambrose, who would surely have made the most of it in his poetic story.
[945] Bohadin, 306, 307.
[946] _Itin._, 385-7; cf. _Est._, ll. 10329-421.
[947] Bohadin, 307, 308.
[948] Cf. Bohadin, 308, 309, with _Est._, ll. 10435-511, and _Itin._, 387-90.
[949] _Est._, ll. 10512-64; _Itin._, 390, 391.
[950] Bohadin, 309. He calls the day “Tuesday, 11th of Jomada II”; but as 11 Jomada II in that year was a Wednesday, it is doubtful whether he means Tuesday 10 (= June 23) or Wednesday 11 (= June 24). The former is almost certainly the true date. Roger of Howden, iii. 182, says the affair occurred “on the eve of S. John”; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55, says the Frank army set out on the night preceding June 22; the _Estoire_, l. 10304, says it set out “un seir de diemaine,” which thus seems to have been Sunday June 21; and both _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ clearly indicate that the fight took place on the second morning after. Imad-ed-Din, _l.c._, locates it at “El Hesy”; but we cannot possibly set aside the plain and unanimous testimony of Bohadin and the Frank writers as to Kuweilfeh. The Franks do not mention El Hesy at all on this occasion; Bohadin makes it clear that both parties passed through that locality on their way. It seems plain also that in this case, as in an earlier one, “El Hesy” stands not for the village now so called, but for the Wady, and more especially for its western end, or head. In one place the actual phrase used is “the source of El Hesy” (“la source d’El Hasy,” French edition of Bohadin, _l.c._; “caput El Hissi,” Schultens’ edition, 232).
[951] Bohadin, 311-15.
[952] Cf. Bohadin, 309, _Est._, ll. 10565-75, and _Itin._, 392. Bohadin says they got back to their camp on “Friday, 16 Jomada II,” which is self-contradictory, as 16 Jomada II (= June 26) that year was Monday. He may have meant either Monday June 26 or Friday 30; he may even have meant both, and confused them together. The indications in _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ are vague, but they seem to imply a two days’ journey from the Round Cistern to Ramlah; thus Ramlah may have been reached on the 26th and the “camp” proper, at Beit Nuba, on the 30th. Richard seems not to have gone to Beit Nuba at all, but to his former quarters at Castle Arnold; R. Coggeshall, 40.
[953] _Est._, ll. 10576-626; _Itin._, 393, 394.
[954] _Est._, ll. 10639-64; _Itin._, 394, 395.
[955] R. Coggeshall, 39, 40. Ralf says Richard caused Saladin’s captured envoys to be shot to death with arrows by his own servants in the sight of the host, neither portion of it (that is, his own adherents or those of Burgundy) knowing whence the victims came nor why they were thus slain. It seems hardly possible that Ambrose should have omitted to mention so strange an incident if it really was seen by the Crusaders of whom he was one. Ralf further represents Hugh as setting out for Acre with his forces immediately, and Richard with the rest of the host following next day; whereas Ambrose distinctly says that the French quitted Beit Nuba at the same time as the king (_Est._, ll. 10709-10). The _Itinerarium_, 397, says the same.
[956] Bohadin, 315.
[957] “Quatre liues,” _Est._, l. 10690; “quatuor tantum nunc distabant millia,” _Itin._, 396. Beit Nuba is about thirteen miles from Jerusalem. Seemingly “liues” and “millia” here must stand for hours of march, as Stubbs says they often do in Crusade history.
[958] _Itin._, 376. This passage follows the account of an event which the same writer dates June 17, and other authorities June 16.
[959] “Par la Porte David estoit la voie qui maine en Belleem. Em mi voie estoit une Esglyze ou Seint Elie fu mananz,” _Contin. W. Tyr._, MS. Rothelin, _Recueil Hist. Occid._, ii. 512. R. Howden, iii. 182, calls the place “capellam S. Elyae quae distat a Jerusalem per tres leucas.” As the distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is about six miles, Roger must here have used the word _leuca_ as equivalent to a mile (as the author of the _Itinerarium_ seems to have done frequently). On the other hand, there appears to be a mistake in the passage from the Rothelin MS.; seeing that “David’s Gate” was the west gate of Jerusalem, and that Bethlehem lies south of that city, the natural “way that leads to Bethlehem” would be by the “Gate of Sion.”
[960] _Est._, ll. 10089-135; _Itin._, 377, 378. Both writers give the date as “the third day before S. John’s,” and the Latin one adds “die S. Albani,” _i. e._ June 22. On June 22, however, Richard was, as we have seen, at Galatia. Roger of Howden’s account of the affair (iii. 182) is obviously confused. He gives no date; but in his work, as in the _Estoire_ and the _Itinerarium_, the story is immediately followed by that of the Egyptian caravan. Probably therefore the true date is Sunday, June 21.
[961] R. Coggeshall, 40, 41.
[962] Joinville, c. 108.
[963] Bohadin, 315; _Est._, ll. 10704-5.
[964] Bohadin, 316.
[965] Bohadin, 316-22; obviously more authentic than the version in _Est._, ll. 10747-63, and _Itin._, 398, 399.
[966] _Est._, ll. 10706-14; _Itin._, 397, giving the date.
[967] _Est._, ll. 10768-85; _Itin._, 399-401. The date of leaving Joppa comes from Bohadin, 322, that of the arrival at Acre from _Itin._, 400-1.
[968] _Est._, ll. 10935-55; _Itin._, 403-4. (The dates will appear from the sequel.) The former writer seems to imply, and the latter distinctly states, that Richard had really and avowedly called his ships together for the purpose of sailing at once for Europe, the attack on Beyrout being intended as a mere incident on the way. I cannot believe this view of the matter to be based on anything else than an erroneous impression current among the lower ranks of the host. Richard may very likely have hoped that the capture of Beyrout would lead to fresh overtures for peace on the part of the Moslems, and to such concessions from them as might enable him to make a treaty which would end the war for a time, and thus set him honourably free to depart before the date which he had fixed; he may have made preparations for such a contingency, and if so, he would no doubt make them openly because a possibility of their purpose being misconstrued could hardly occur to his mind. Richard might break a treaty or a contract without scruple, and also without appreciable damage to his reputation in his own day; but a sudden desertion of the Holy Land such as these writers supposed him to have contemplated would have been a flagrant breach of what he and every other man of the world of chivalry held far more sacred than any treaty or contract—his knightly word, solemnly and publicly pledged only a few weeks before. Such an act must infallibly have brought upon him, in his own eyes and in the eyes of all true knights, a double share of the “shame and everlasting contempt” which he had once denounced against Philip Augustus, and would be utterly irreconcileable with his whole character. The Beyrout project seems really to have been much more definite and important than we should gather from the casual way in which it is mentioned by the two Frank chroniclers. It had evidently been planned in concert with the other leaders before Richard left Joppa, since as early as July 22—five days before the king reached Acre—Saladin had learned from his spies that “the Franks were moving on Beyrout”; Bohadin, 322.
[969] Bohadin, 322, 323; dates, which he gives in his usual self-contradictory fashion, corrected by help of _Est._, ll. 10807-10, and _Itin._, 400, 401.
[970] Cf. Bohadin, 327, 328, _Itin._, 401-3, and _Est._, ll. 10815-25.
[971] _Est._, ll. 10910, 10911.
[972] Both _Estoire_, ll. 10957-63, and _Itinerarium_, 404, say the messengers reported that Joppa was already taken and the garrison shut up in the citadel; but the sequel shows that they reached Acre on the date given above, July 28, three days before matters had come to this pass.
[973] _Est._, ll. 10968-76; _Itin._, 504. Cf. R. Coggeshall, 41, 42.
[974] Cf. _Itin._, 404, 405, _Est._, ll. 10979-11037, and R. Coggeshall, 42. The _Estoire_ (ll. 11033-7) says they lay off Joppa “tote la nuit del _samedi_”; which can be correct only if Ambrose has here fallen, as some of the Frank chroniclers of the Crusade seem to have occasionally done, into the eastern way of reckoning days, from evening to evening.
[975] _Est._, ll. 10021-4.
[976] Bohadin, 328-31.
[977] _Itin._, 405, 406; cf. _Est._, ll. 11040-54.
[978] Bohadin, 331, 332.
[979] Cf. Bohadin, 332, with _Itin._, 407, 408, and _Est._, ll. 11079-11113.
[980] _Est._, ll. 11114-26.
[981] Bohadin, 333.
[982] _Itin._, 407, 408; _Est._, ll. 11127-53; Bohadin, 332; R. Coggeshall, 43.
[983] Bohadin, 333.
[984] _Est._, ll. 11154-8; _Itin._, 408.
[985] _Itin._, 410, 411; _Est._, ll. 11164-238; cf. Bohadin, 333.
[986] R. Coggeshall, 43.
[987] Cf. the French translation of Bohadin, 334, with the Latin in Schultens’s edition, 252: “Cognitamque meam in bello operam praestabo.”
[988] Bohadin, 333-5. He dates the negotiations “evening of Saturday 19 Rajab” and the removal to Ramlah “Sunday 20 Rajab.” Saturday was really 20 Rajab = August 1. Here, as usual with eastern writers, “evening” stands for “eve,” _i. e._ the “vigil” or evening _before_.
[989] _Ib._, 335.
[990] _Itin._, 412; Est., ll. 11295-9.
[991] _Itin._, 413; Est., ll. 11318-27.
[992] Bohadin, 336; cf. R. Coggeshall, 44.
[993] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 44, 45, _Itin._, 414, 415, and _Est._, ll. 11379-407.
[994] R. Coggeshall, 44, cf. _Itin._, 420. The latter writer puts the episode of the Saracens re-occupying the town and Richard re-taking it at the end of his narrative of the fight, _i. e._ after the victory outside the walls; but as he introduces it with “Interea,” we cannot be sure where in the order of events he really meant to place it; and as R. Coggeshall’s information is derived from Hugh de Neville, who was in close attendance on the king during the fight, his narrative is probably correct.
[995] See details of the array in _Itin._, 416.
[996] R. Coggeshall, 44, 45; cf. _Itin._, _l.c._
[997] “Ferme quinquaginta milites,” _Itin._, 413; “milites octoginta,” R. Coggeshall, 50.
[998] The _Itin._, 413, says fifteen, but R. Coggeshall, 46, says six horses and one mule. Bohadin—after remarking “I was not there, thank God!”—says some who were there told him the Christian knights numbered only nine, or at most seventeen (337); he, or his informants, doubtless reckoned as “knights” only those who were horsed. According to the _Itin._, 420, Richard gained two more horses, as soon as he entered the town, by killing their Turkish riders.
[999] “Un hardi serjant e nobile, Henri le Tyois, el conroi Portoit la baniere le roi,” _Est._, ll. 11432-4. “Serviens probissimus Hernicus Teutonicus, regis signifer,” _Itin._, 415. “Rex ... assumptis secum sex strenuis militibus cum regio vexillo,” R. Coggeshall, 55.
[1000] _Itin._, 420. This writer reduces the king’s mounted followers at this time to two, which of course is absurd.
[1001] R. Coggeshall, 46.
[1002] _Itin._, 420, 421.
[1003] _Ib._, 417.
[1004] R. Coggeshall, 47.
[1005] _Ib._; cf. _Itin._, 416, 417, and Bohadin, 337.
[1006] R. Coggeshall, 48.
[1007] _Ib._; cf. _Itin._, 417.
[1008] Bohadin, 337; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 64.
[1009] Ibn Alathyr, 65.
[1010] Bohadin, 337.
[1011] R. Coggeshall, 49.
[1012] _Itin._, 418; cf. _Est._, ll. 11510-32.
[1013] R. Coggeshall, 49-51.
[1014] _Itin._, 423.
[1015] Bohadin, 338.
[1016] _Itin._, 412. This seems to have been a not uncommon practice of the Turks.
[1017] _Ib._, 425; R. Coggeshall, 51.
[1018] Bohadin, 336.
[1019] “Saturday, 26 Rajab” says Bohadin, 338, but 26 Rajab was a Friday.
[1020] Bohadin, 338, 339.
[1021] Bohadin, 339-41.
[1022] _Est._, ll. 11725-49; _Itin._, 425-7.
[1023] _Itin._, 427; cf. R. Devizes, 75.
[1024] _Est._, ll. 11750-60; _Itin._, _l.c._
[1025] Bohadin, 341, 342.
[1026] “Houat,” Bohadin, 342. Stubbs, in a note to _Itin._, 428, suggests this identification, which is rendered highly probable by the mention in R. Devizes, 69, of Hubert as concerned in the making of the truce.
[1027] Bohadin, 342-4.
[1028] Bohadin, 344.
[1029] _Ib._, 344-6. He says the truce was for three years and eight months from Wednesday 22 Shaban = October 1. Ibn Alathyr (_Recueil_, II. i. 65) says three years and eight months from September 1; Imad-ed-Din (_apud_ Abu Shama, 78) says three years and three months, without any date; R. Diceto, ii. 305, and W. Newburgh, lib. iv. c. 29, make the period three years, three months, three weeks, three days and three hours from Easter 1193. Bohadin is unquestionably the best authority on the matter, especially as the final proposals on the Moslem side appear to have been actually written either by his own hand, or by the hand of the writer—whoever this may have been—who made the revised edition of his work, published with a Latin translation by Dr. Schultens at Leyden; so at least we gather from Schultens, 259—“_Conscripsi_ quae convenerant, _exaravique_ conditiones pacis.” The French version, which represents Bohadin’s original text, has merely “_On_ rédigea,” etc.; so we are left in doubt whether the first person in the Leyden version represents Bohadin himself or his reviser.
Richard of Devizes (69-77) has a long and curious account of the circumstances relating to the truce. According to him, the first overtures were made and the preliminaries arranged by Hubert of Salisbury and Henry of Champagne without the knowledge of King Richard, and the matter was only referred to the king when it was so far advanced that, sick and bewildered as he was, he could do nothing but leave it in their hands and sanction their arrangements. This in itself is not impossible, nor is it irreconcileable with Bohadin’s narrative; but there are in Richard’s story details which are certainly incorrect—_e. g._, he makes Hubert and Henry apply to Safadin instead of Bedr-ed-Din, and introduces visits of Safadin in person to the camp at Joppa and to the king himself, all of which are unquestionably fictitious or imaginary.
[1030] _Est._, ll. 11801-26; _Itin._, 429, 430.
[1031] Bohadin, 348.
[1032] _Ib._, 349, 350; _Est._, ll. 11868-75; _Itin._, 432.
[1033] R. Devizes, 78.
[1034] Bohadin, 350.
[1035] _Est._, ll. 11835-8; _Itin._, 430.
[1036] _Est._, ll. 12257-70; _Itin._, 440.
[1037] _Itin._, 441; cf. _Est._, ll. 12271-2.
[1038] Rigord, 118.
[1039] Rigord (_l.c._), says “secundo vendidit”; R. Howden, iii. 306, when recording Guy’s death in 1195, says “cui Rex Angliae vendiderat insulam Cypri.” But Roger himself says elsewhere (181), that when Henry was chosen King of Jerusalem “rex Angliae dedit in excambium regi Guidoni insulam de Cypre in vita sua tenendam.” Ralf of Coggeshall, who also (36) places the transaction after Henry’s election in April 1192, says, “Regi Guidoni concessit, accepto ejus homagio”; and W. Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 29) says, “mera liberalitate donavit.” The version given by all these latter writers can hardly fail to be the correct one; it is inconceivable that Guy could have had means for the purchase.
[1040] This in an inference from Rigord, 118, who seems to place the whole transaction at this time.
[1041] R. Diceto, ii. 106; _Itin._, 441.
[1042] _Ll.cc_; R. Howden, iii. 185, says October 8.
[1043] Bohadin, 348.
[1044] _Eracle, Recueil, Hist. Occid._, ii. 189.
[1045] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.
[1046] R. Coggeshall, 53.
[1047] _Ann. Colon. Max._, Pertz, xvii. 796; cf. Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115 (Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli). “Allein die Glaubwürdigkeit dieser Zeugnisse unterliegt gegründeten Bedenken”; Kellner, _Ueber die deutsche Gefangenschaft Richards I_, 44.
[1048] “Applicuit in insula de Cuverfu, et navigavit usque ad tres galeas quas vidit ex opposito in Rumania,” R. Howden, iii. 185. Roger dates the arrival at Corfu, “infra mensem post diem illum,” _i. e._ the day on which Richard left Acre, October 9. R. Coggeshall, whose information, being partly derived from the chaplain Anselm who accompanied the king on his voyage, is probably more accurate, says (53) that Richard had been six weeks at sea when he turned back to Corfu; so the date would be about November 20. According to the same writer (_l.c._) the pirate galleys numbered two, not three as Roger says.
[1049] Twenty-one according to R. Howden, _l.c._ One of the party was Anselm, who told the story to R. Coggeshall, _l.c._
[1050] R. Howden, _l.c._
[1051] Document, dated 1598, from the archives of Ragusa, “ex lib. Div. Cancellariae n. 98,” in Farlati, _Illyricum Sacrum_, vi. 90.
[1052] Appendini, _Notizie istorico-critiche sulle antichita, etc., di Ragusa_, i. 272; Farlati, vi. 90.
[1053] “It is not Great Britain who will fail in keeping her promises. Great Britain has known us ever since Richard received our hospitality and built for us a most beautiful church on the spot where our ancestors had saved him from shipwreck on his way back from the Crusade,” said M. Vesnitch, the representative of Serbia, at a great public meeting in Paris on January 27, 1916.
[1054] None of the authorities for Richard’s voyage mention more than one landing after his departure from Corfu. “Accidit ut ventus, rupta nave sua in qua ipse erat, duceret eam versus partes Histriae, ad locum qui est inter Aquileiam et Venetiam, ubi rex Dei permissione passus naufragium cum paucis evasit,” says the Emperor in a letter to Philip of France (R. Howden, iii. 195). Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky, 114; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.) says, “Ad Polam, civitatem Ystriae, ad litus fertur et applicare cogitur.” R. Diceto (ii. 106) makes the voyage end “in Sclavonia”; R. Coggeshall (54), “in partes Sclavoniae, ad quandam villam nomine Gazaram”; R. Howden (iii. 105) “prope Gazere apud Raguse.” This word _Gazere_, misunderstood as intended to represent Zara, has puzzled commentators, but is explained by Wilkinson (_Dalmatia and Montenegro_, i. 301) as being a corruption of an Arabic word meaning “island”; that is, it really stands here for Lacroma. The final landing was evidently not anywhere in “Slavonic parts” but in Istria, as the German authorities say; and of these the Emperor is the most likely to be correct.
[1055] The narrative which we are here following—that of Richard’s chaplain and companion Anselm, as reported by R. Coggeshall, 53-5—calls this personage merely “Dominus provinciae illius, qui nepos extitit Marchisii.” That he was the Count of Gorizia appears from the Emperor’s letter in R. Howden, iii. 195.
[1056] R. Coggeshall, 54, 55.
[1057] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.
[1058] It comprised, besides Baldwin de Béthune and the king, “Magister Philippus regis clericus, atque Anselmus capellanus qui haec omnia nobis ut vidit et audivit retulit, et quidam fratres Templi,” R. Coggeshall, 54; and also, as appears later (_ib._, 55), some personal attendants of Richard’s.
[1059] Letter of Henry VI, in R. Howden, iii. 195.
[1060] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 104; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.
[1061] Letter of Henry VI, _l.c._
[1062] R. Coggeshall, 55. The name of the town, Freisach, and that of the German lord, Frederic of Pettau, are not given by Ralf; they are supplied from the Emperor’s letter, _l.c._ Ralf makes the final halting-place and the scene of the capture Vienna itself: “ad quandam villam nomine Ginanam in Austria prope Danubium”; but the German accounts, including that of the Emperor, which must have been derived from Leopold of Austria, make it a neighbouring village: “juxta Wenam in villa viciniori, in domo despecta,” letter in R. Howden, _l.c._; “in quoddam diversorium juxta Viennam civitatem,” Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 334); “circa Wiennam ... in vili hospitio,” Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky, 114, R. Howden, iii. cxl). Kellner (_Gefangenschaft Richards I_, 29), calls the place “Erdberg, Dörfchen bei Wien”; but I can find no authority for the name. Trivet, to whom he seems to refer for it, says “in civitate Wienna” (ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 148).
[1063] R. Coggeshall, 56. R. Howden, iii, 186, says Richard was captured asleep; according to Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 324), he was roasting meat on a spit, thinking by this servile employment to avoid recognition, and was betrayed by a splendid ring which he had forgotten to remove from his finger. This account of the matter has a somewhat characteristic air; but it may have been founded on a confused version of Ralf’s story of the ring offered to Mainard of Gorizia. W. Newburgh’s narrative of Richard’s adventures (lib. iv. c. 31) seems to be based on the Emperor’s letter, which says nothing about the circumstances of the capture; the details and speeches added by William are obviously mere rhetoric of his own. The date is given by R. Coggeshall as December 21, by R. Diceto (ii. 106) as December 22.
[1064] _Ann. Marbac._, Pertz, xvii. 165; Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 112; R. Howden, iii., introd. cxl.
[1065] R. Coggeshall, 56.
[1066] Letter in R. Howden, iii, 195.
[1067] _Ann. Magn. Reichensberg._, Pertz, xvii. 520.
[1068] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115; R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.
[1069] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.
[1070] Agreement in Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115-19, and Stubbs’s R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.-iii.
[1071] Kellner, _Gefangenschaft_, 39.
[1072] Rigord, 116; _Gesta Ric._, 192-9, 203, 204, 227-30.
[1073] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 78; for date see Kellner, 18, note 2. Milan does not appear in Philip’s itinerary in _Gesta Ric._, unless in the form of “Cassem Milan” (230), and this identification is doubtful, as the name comes between “Monte Bardon” and “Furnos,” _i. e._ Farinovo. Some of the other names, however, seem to be out of geographical order.
[1074] This probably referred to Richard’s dealings with Saladin.
[1075] R. Howden, iii. 198, 199; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33. The date of the assembly is from R. Diceto, ii. 106. The place was probably Spire; Richard was there on Easter day and on the Tuesday in Easter week (March 28 and 30), _Epp. Cantuar._, 362-4. The statement of the Emperor’s poetical panegyrist, Peter of Eboli, that Richard offered to clear himself by ordeal of battle, a proposal by which Henry was so greatly impressed in his favour that he set him at liberty (_Petr. Ansolini de Ebulo Carmen_, _apud_ Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Scriptt._ xxxi. 142), is probably a misunderstanding or a poetical embellishment of Richard’s offer to stand to right in the court of his French overlord.
[1076] R. Diceto, ii. 106, 107.
[1077] Stubbs, note to R. Howden, iii. 210.
[1078] R. Coggeshall, 58. Ralf says Richard was imprisoned “primo _Treviris_, deinde Warmatiae.” _Treviris_ here seems to mean Triffels, as there is no other indication that Richard was ever at Treves; we shall see that he was at Worms later. Ralf is perhaps the best authority as to the character of Richard’s imprisonment, as he probably heard about it from Anselm the chaplain, who may very likely have been, for a time at least, one of the attendants imprisoned with their sovereign. William of Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 37, lib. v. c. 31) is less to be trusted on the subject. Two German chroniclers say that Richard was kept “sub honorabili custodia” (_Ann. Aquicinct._, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xviii. 456), “in libera clausus custodia” (_Andr. Marchian._, _ib._ 557); but the chief German historian of the time, Otto of S. Blaise, says “Henricus [regem] Wormatiam asportari vinctum ferroque onustum praecepit” (Pertz, xx. 324).
[1079] R. Howden, iii. 197, a letter which shows that Savaric was at the Imperial court before February 28.
[1080] _Récits d’un ménéstrel de Reims_, 41-4.
[1081] R. Howden, iii. 198.
[1082] _Ib._, iii. 194.
[1083] _Gesta_, 230, 236.
[1084] _Ib._, 236. The actual “treaty of Messina” is not extant; all we know about it is from Philip’s charter, dated March 1190 (_i. e._ before March 25, 1191, the French year beginning on Lady Day), proclaiming certain conditions on which he and Richard had made “a firm peace.” This charter, in its existing form, contains no mention of either Eu or Aumale, nor of any conditions about the restitution of Aloysia or of her dower-lands. No original copy of it is known; it is printed in _Fœdera_, I. i. 54 from a fragment of an English Treasury Roll dating from the second half of the thirteenth century. Powicke, _Loss of Normandy_, 126, 127.
[1085] _Gesta_, 236, 237.
[1086] R. Howden, iii. 204.
[1087] _Ib._, iii. 205.
[1088] “Imperator vero iratum animum ac ferocem erga regem diutius conservans nullatenus eum in praesentia sua convocare vel alloqui voluit.” R. Coggeshall, 58.
[1089] R. Coggeshall, 58.
[1090] French version in Leroux de Lincy, _Recueil de Chansons Historiques_, i. 56-9, and Sismondi, _Literature of S. Europe_, trans. Roscoe, i. 152 _et seq._; Provençal version in Raynouard, _Choix de Poésies des Troubadours_, iv. 183 _et seq._
[1091] _I. e._ Philip of France.
[1092] “Mes compaignons cui j’amoie e cui j’aim, Ces dou Cahiul” (“Chacu,” Sismondi) “e ces dou Porcherain” (“Percherain,” Sismondi). Leroux de Lincy translates “Ceux de Cahors et ceux du Perche.” Feeling doubtful about the identification, I have tried to turn the difficulty by using a vague phrase and omitting the names altogether.
[1093] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33.
[1094] Gerv. Cant., i. 517.
[1095] He landed in England on April 20; _ib._, 516.
[1096] “Honeste circa ipsum Imperatorem moram facimus.”
[1097] Letter of Richard, in R. Howden, iii. 209, 210.
[1098] R. Howden, iii. 206.
[1099] Rigord, 123.
[1100] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 206; R. Coggeshall, 61, 62; Rigord, 123, 125, 126; _Chron. Rothomag., Rev. Gall. Scriptt._, xvii. 358; _Ann. Aquicinct_, _ib._, xviii. 546. The dates are conflicting, and Rigord’s chronology, in particular, is even more confused than usual just here; the other writers, especially the English ones, are safer guides.
[1101] “Misit nuncios ad Imperatorem cum infinita pecunia, rogans attentius regem Angliae utpote hominem suum ei mitteret liberum, vel diutius retineret incarceratum.” Gerv. Cant., i. 516.
[1102] Richard was there on May 26 and June 8; _Epp. Cant._, 364, 365; cf. Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.
[1103] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 37, says 24th; R. Howden, iii. 212, says 25th.
[1104] R. Howden, iii. 214; date, June, _Vita Alb. Leod._, Pertz, xxv. 168.
[1105] “Totius Alemanniae generalis conventus magnates solos comprehendens,” says R. Diceto, ii. 110, who dates it July 5; but R. Howden, _l.c._, is obviously more accurate.
[1106] William Brewer and Baldwin de Béthune. These latter arrived on June 28; R. Howden, _l.c._
[1107] R. Howden, iii. 214, 215.
[1108] R. Howden, iii. 215, 216.
[1109] John—whose restoration, however, was conditional; see R. Howden, iii. 217, 218;—the count of Angoulême, who in 1192-3 had stirred up another revolt in Aquitaine, invaded Poitou, and been made prisoner by its seneschal; see _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192, and R. Howden, iii. 194;—and the counts of Perche and Meulan, who had supported John’s intrigues in Normandy.
[1110] Treaty in R. Howden, iii. 217-20.
[1111] Letters in R. Howden, iii. 226, 227.
[1112] _Ib._, 229.
[1113] R. Howden, iii. 228-32.
[1114] Letter of Archbishop Walter of Rouen in R. Diceto, ii. 112, 113.
[1115] R. Howden, iii. 233.
[1116] See Note V at end.
[1117] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 113.
[1118] R. Howden, iii. 233, 234.
[1119] R. Howden, iii. 234; cf. Gislebert of Mons, Pertz’s small edition, 250. The duke of Suabia was the emperor’s brother; the marquis of Montferrat was Boniface, brother and successor to Conrad. To the duke of Louvain Richard also granted the lands in England which had belonged to count Matthew of Boulogne, father of the duke’s wife, “ipsique duci contra comitem Flandriae et Hanoniae et marchisum Namurcensi auxilium promisit, ita quod saltem tantum comiti Flandriae et Hanoniae guerram facerent quod comes nequaquam domino regi Franciae auxilium ferre posset” (Gislebert, _l.c._). The Flemish chronicler adds: “Conventiones tamen eorum in nulla parte fuerunt observatae; nec mirum, cum rex Angliae nemini unquam vel fidem vel pactum servasset, nec omnes illi nominati cum quibus foedus firmaverat conventiones suas observare consuevissent” (_ib._, 250, 251). This is rather too sweeping, in view of the conduct of the allies in after-years. One of them at least, Boniface of Montferrat, received three hundred marks “de feodo suo” and ten marks as a present from Richard in 1197 (Stapleton, _Norman Exchequer Rolls_, ii. 301).
[1120] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 41.
[1121] R. Howden, iii. 235.
[1122] R. Coggeshall, 62.
[1123] “Circa horam tertiam recessit a portu de Swine, et in crastino post horam diei nonam applicuit in Angliam apud Sandicum portum, diei dominica tertio idus Martii”; _i. e._ he left Swine on Saturday March 12, and reached Sandwich on Sunday the 13th, R. Howden, iii. 235. R. Diceto, ii. 114, makes it a week later, Sunday March 20; but that this is wrong is clear from Gervase of Canterbury, i. 524, where we are told that Richard was received at Canterbury on the 13th, having landed at Sandwich on the 12th. Ralf of Coggeshall, 62, says he landed “secunda hora diei,” on the Sunday after S. Gregory’s day, _i. e._ on March 13.
[1124] R. Diceto, ii. 114; cf. R. Coggeshall, 63.
[1125] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.
[1126] R. Coggeshall, 63.
[1127] It was seemingly on the march to Nottingham that, according to a marginal note in two MSS. of Ralf of Coggeshall, “Robertus Brito a rege captus, jussit ut fame in carcere interiret” (63). I have failed to discover who this man was, or what he had done to incur such a doom.
[1128] R. Howden, iii. 237-9.
[1129] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.
[1130] R. Howden, iii. 239.
[1131] _Hist. G. le. Mar._, ll. 10236-64.
[1132] R. Howden, iii. 240; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 114.
[1133] R. Coggeshall, 63.
[1134] R. Howden, iii. 240, 241.
[1135] For details see R. Howden, _l.c._, 241.
[1136] _Ib._
[1137] R. Howden, iii. 242, 243, 245.
[1138] _Ib._, 247, 248.
[1139] “Ut regnum innovaret.” Gerv. Cant., i. 524.
[1140] Gerv. Cant., i. 524, 525.
[1141] _Ib._, 524-6; cf. R. Howden, iii. 247, 248.
[1142] Gerv. Cant., 525.
[1143] “Tantaque solemnitas facta est _propter praecedentis captionis contumeliam_,” _ib._, 526, “In octavis Paschae Wintoniae regni diademate fulgidus, _detersa captivitatis ignominia_, quasi rex novus apparuit,” W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42. “Rex Ricardus ... consilio procerum suorum, _licet aliquantulum_ renitens, coronatus est,” R. Coggeshall, 64. It is hard to conceive what “ignominy” or “contumely” could be thought to attach to the mere fact of Richard’s captivity, or why Richard should have been “reluctant” to revive a time-honoured custom which would surely have appealed with double force to his well-known love of pomp and splendour and of grand Church services, unless its revival was urged upon him for some special reason whose cogency he was unwilling to admit. On the other hand, it is curious that R. Diceto (ii. 114) says nothing about this crown-wearing beyond the bare statement that the king “in octavis Paschae regni diadema suscepit de manibus Huberti Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi.”
[1144] R. Howden, iii. 249, 250.
[1145] R. Howden, iii. 251. R. Diceto, ii. 114, and Gerv. Cant., i. 527, give the same date.
[1146] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10431-52.
[1147] Cf. Rigord, 127, R. Diceto, ii. 115, with date Whitsun Eve (May 27), and R. Howden, iii. 252.
[1148] Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10,353-518, R. Howden, Rigord, _ll.cc._, and R. Diceto, ii. 115, 116.
[1149] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10491-550.
[1150] _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192; under this year all the events of 1192-5 are lumped together in this Chronicle.
[1151] R. Howden, iii. 252.
[1152] R. Diceto, ii. 116.
[1153] _Ib._, ii. 117; R. Howden and _Chron. S. Alb._, _ll.cc._
[1154] R. Howden, iii. 252, 253.
[1155] Rigord, 127; _Chron. Turon._, a. 1194, with date June 11. This spoliation was only temporary; on November 11 of the same year Richard, at Alençon, restored into the hands of the legate all that he had taken from the canons and other clerks of S. Martin at Tours. R. Diceto, ii. 122.
[1156] R. Diceto, ii. 117; R. Howden, iii. 252.
[1157] R. Diceto, _l.c._
[1158] _Ib._; R. Howden, _l.c._, giving date; _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192.
[1159] R. Howden, iii. 253; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 116.
[1160] R. Howden, iii. 253, 254; cf. Rigord, 127, who gives the date, June 14.
[1161] R. Howden, iii. 254, 255.
[1162] Cf. _ib._, iii. 255, 256; R. Diceto, ii. 117; W. Newb., lib. v. c. 2; Rigord, 129, and _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192. William the Breton’s description of the captured documents (_Philippis_, lib. iv. ll. 530-68) is surely a poetical exaggeration. The date is from R. Diceto, who says the affair took place thirty-seven days after Philip’s retirement from Verneuil.
[1163] R. Howden, iii. 256.
[1164] Peter was made seneschal between February 12 and May 5, 1190; see Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 263-5.
[1165] _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192.
[1166] Elias V, 1166-1204.
[1167] R. Howden, iii. 194; cf. R. Devizes, 55.
[1168] Teulet, _Layettes du Trésor des Chartes_, i. 176.
[1169] R. Diceto, ii. 117.
[1170] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 257. Cf. W. Newb., lib. v. c. 2.
[1171] R. Diceto, ii. 118, 119.
[1172] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 257-60.
[1173] See Note VI at end.
[1174] The ordinance concerning tourneys; dated “apud Villam Episcopi,” _Fœdera_, I. i. 65.
[1175] R. Howden, iii. 259.
[1176] Madox, _Hist. Exchequer_, i. 637, 638.
[1177] See Note VI at end.
[1178] R. Diceto, ii. 119.
[1179] R. Howden, iii. 267.
[1180] _Fœdera_, I. i. 65; also in Appendix to Preface to R. Diceto, ii. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.
[1181] R. Howden, iii. 288-90.
[1182] W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17.
[1183] R. Howden, iii. 290.
[1184] R. Howden, iii. 276.
[1185] R. Diceto, ii. 121.
[1186] R. Howden, iii. 283. Roger places the story “eodem anno” between two events of which one is dated January and the other February 1195.
[1187] R. Howden, iii. 300, 301.
[1188] _Ib._, 302, 303.
[1189] R. Howden, iii. 301; W. Newb., lib. v. c. 15; cf. Rigord, 130, 131. The two latter give the date “mense Julio.”
[1190] _Fœdera_, I. i. 66.
[1191] R. Howden, iii. 303, 304.
[1192] _Ib._, iii. 304.
[1193] Rigord, 131. Arques had been in Philip’s hands since July 1193, when it was pledged to him and placed under the control of the archbishop of Reims by the treaty which William of Ely made during Richard’s captivity.
[1194] _Ib._; R. Howden, iii. 304.
[1195] Rigord, 131, 132.
[1196] R. Howden, iii. 305.
[1197] Rigord, 132.
[1198] W. Newb., lib. v. c. 15.
[1199] R. Howden, _l.c._; cf. W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17.
[1200] W. Newb., _l.c._
[1201] Rigord, 132.
[1202] Cf. Rigord, 132, 133, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17, and R. Howden, iii. 305. The last-named gives the date of the meeting at Issoudun as December 9; Rigord and William make it December 5, and are confirmed by Delisle’s _Catal. des Actes de Ph. Aug._, nos. 462-464.
[1203] Treaty in _Fœdera_, I. i. 66; cf. R. Howden, iv. 3, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 18, Rigord, 133, and Delisle, _Catal._, nos. 463, 464.
[1204] R. Howden, iv. 3, 4.
[1205] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 135-137; cf. R. Howden, _l.c._
[1206] Letter in Appendix to Preface to R. Diceto, ii. lxxix., lxxx.; dated April 15. The context shows the year to be 1196.
[1207] R. Howden, iv. 7.
[1208] Cf. R. Howden, _l.c._ Gerv. Cant., i. 532, and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 18.
[1209] R. Howden and Gerv. Cant., _ll.cc._
[1210] W. Armor. _Philippis_, lib. v. vv. 147-60.
[1211] W. Newb. and R. Howden, _ll.cc._; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 161-65.
[1212] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 74-96; cf. Rigord, 135, who dates the latter event “brevi temporis elapso spatio” after an event which occurred in June.
[1213] R. Howden, iv. 4, 5.
[1214] Rigord, 135, 136; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 168-242, 254-69. There is documentary evidence of Philip’s presence at Aumale in July 1196; Delisle, _Catal._, no. 502. Gervase of Canterbury, i. 532, has confused the chronology.
[1215] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. v. 269.
[1216] Cf. _Mag. Vita S. Hugonis_, 248-51, and R. Howden, iv. 40.
[1217] Letter of Walter in R. Diceto, ii. 149, 150; cf. R. Howden, iv. 14, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 28, R. Coggeshall, 70, and Gerv. Cant., i. 544.
[1218] “Precipitans sevus alta de rupe deorsum Littore Sequanio, muros ubi _postea_ rupis Gaillarde struxit,” W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 311-13. This dates the story 1196-7.
[1219] Such is the story as told by Philip’s poet-historiographer, W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 276-324. Roger of Howden, iv. 54, tells it in less detail under the year 1198, without specifying its occasion; according to him Philip was the originator of this “novum genus grassandi in populo,” “and thus provoked the king of England, though unwilling, to a like impious act.”
[1220] R. Howden, iv. 18, 19; cf. letters of Walter and Richard in R. Diceto, ii. 153-8.
[1221] Letter in _Fœdera_, I. i. 71, dated “apud Bellum Castellum de Rupe,” July 11, 1198.
[1222] J. Brompton, Twysden, _X. Scriptt._, col. 1276.
[1223] Delisle, _Catal._, nos. 497, 499.
[1224] Rigord, 137; _Fœdera_, I., i. 67, 68.
[1225] R. Howden, iv. 19.
[1226] R. Howden, iv. 7.
[1227] _Ib._, 13.
[1228] D’Achéry, _Spicilegium_, vii. 343; cf. Vaissète, _Hist. de Languedoc_ (new ed.), vi. 173, 179.
[1229] R. Diceto, ii. 152, giving date April 15; cf. R. Howden, iv. 19 and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 31.
[1230] R. Diceto, _l.c._, R. Howden iv. 16, Gerv. Cant. i. 544, W. Newb., _l.c._ The first two give the day, May 19; Roger makes the year 1196, but the other three all distinctly place the event in 1197.
[1231] R. Howden, iv. 20.
[1232] Cf. _ib._, iv. 20 and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 32. Gerv. Cant., _l.c._ gives the date of Philip’s release “post Assumptionem B. Mariae.”
[1233] Gervase, i. 544, who alone mentions Hubert, dates the conference September 8; R. Howden, iv. 20, 21, dates it September 17. The former makes the truce start from Christmas, the latter (p. 24) from S. Hilary’s day (1198). This second version seems to be the one implied by W. Newb., lib. v. c. 32, who says that “mense Septembri” the kings made “treuiam unius anni et quatuor mensium.”
[1234] “Ita tamen ut qui tenet teneat donec de medio fiat,” says Gervase, _l.c._
[1235] R. Howden, iv. 21.
[1236] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._
[1237] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.
[1238] Charter, dated October 16, 1197, in R. Diceto, ii. 153-6.
[1239] Letter of Celestine, in Magn. Reichersp., Pertz., xvii. 524.
[1240] R. Howden, iv. 37.
[1241] _Ib._, 31.
[1242] Gerv. Cant., i. 545.
[1243] R. Howden, iv. 37, 38.
[1244] R. Diceto, ii. 163.
[1245] Gerv. Cant., i. 545.
[1246] Delisle, _Catal._, no. 535; cf. Rigord, 143.
[1247] R. Howden, iv. 55.
[1248] _Ib._, 59.
[1249] _Ib._, 54.
[1250] R. Howden, iv. 55; R. Diceto, ii. 163, giving date.
[1251] Cf. Richard’s letter, dated Dangu, September 30, in R. Howden, iv. 58, 59, with Roger’s own account, _ib._, 55, 56, 59, 60, R. Diceto, ii. 164, and Rigord, 141, 142.
[1252] Letter in R. Howden, iv. 58, 59.
[1253] “Saviez qu’à Chinon Non a argent ni denier.” Leroux de Lincy, _Rec. de Chansons Historiques_, i. 65-7.
[1254] R. Howden, iv. 66; R. Coggeshall, 93; _Ann. Waverley_, a. 1198; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, ii. 451.
[1255] Wyon, _Great Seals_, 19. The last known grant under the old seal is dated April 1, 1198; _ib._, 149.
[1256] The last confirmation is dated April 5, 1199; Round, _Feudal England_, 542.
[1257] R. Howden, iv. 60; cf. Rigord, 142.
[1258] R. Howden, iv. 78. The latter place was afterwards called Le Goulet.
[1259] “In costamento campionum Regis qui fuerunt ducti in Insulam de Andeleia contra Regem Francie xxx libras.” Roll of A.D. 1198, _Rot. Scacc. Norm._, ii. 481.
[1260] R. Howden, iv. 61, 68.
[1261] _Ib._, 80; Rigord, 144; letters of Innocent in _Fœdera_, I, i. 73. See also the long account of this last conference in _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 11399-726.
[1262] Rigord, _l.c._
[1263] R. Howden, iv. 80, 81.
[1264] Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 259.
[1265] Otto seems to have occasionally styled himself duke of Aquitaine but never in his uncle’s presence. Richard, _Comtes_, ii, 300, 301, 312, 313.
[1266] _Ib._, 300, 301.
[1267] R. Howden, iii. 308.
[1268] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 94, and _Mag. Vita S. Hugonis_, 280.
[1269] Cf. Rigord’s description, 144, with the story of the discovery in W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 492-9. I suppose _census_ in l. 498—“Census absconsos in arato repperit agro”—stands for coins. As to the figures and the “table,” M. Richard (_Comtes_, ii. 322 note) suggests that the treasure was a gilded shield—the “table” being the central knob or _umbo_, with the figures arranged round it—buried for safety in the time of the Bagaudes or of the Barbarian invasion, and that Châlus was chosen as a safe hiding-place because “Châlus, c’est le _castrum luci_, le château du luc, autrement dit du bois sacré.”
[1270] Of La Boissière, according to G. Guiart, _Branche des Royaux Lignages_, l. 2601.
[1271] Cf. W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 499-508; Rigord, _l.c._; and R. Howden, iv. 82, 83.
[1272] R. Howden, iv. 82.
[1273] Cf. _ib._, with R. Coggeshall, 94, and W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 509-12. Gervase of Canterbury, i. 593, calls the place “Nantrun”; a mistake which is explained by a “Fragmentum aliunde assutum” to the chronicle of Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, _Thesaur._,