his eyes fully open to the consequences, a project which brought him
into collision with the highest ecclesiastical authority in Normandy.
Of all the approaches to the Norman capital the most important was
the broad valley through which the Seine winds its course from Paris
across the old battle-ground of the Vexin to the heart of the duchy,
while on either side of this water-way roads from north and east
and south converge to meet beneath the walls of Rouen. Philip was
now master of this valley and its surroundings up to a distance of
about twelve miles from the city. The key of the position, however,
was neither in his hands nor in Richard’s, but in those of the
archbishop of Rouen; it was Andely. The town of Andely stood at
the meeting-point of several roads, on the north side of a stream
called the Gambon, in a valley opening from the eastward upon the
Seine through the chalk cliffs on its right bank, near the middle
of a great curve to the northward in its course between Gaillon and
Louviers. To the west of Andely the Gambon and another rivulet
became merged in a lake or mere whence they issued again to fall into
the great river by two distinct openings separated by a tract of
marshland, at the south-east corner of which stood the toll-house.
Nearly opposite the mouth of each streamlet was an island in the
Seine; the more northerly and larger one was known as the Isle of
Andely. The valley was sheltered on its southern side by a thickly
wooded plateau extending several miles to a point nearly opposite
Gaillon, and called the Forest of Andely. Opposite the toll-house,
at the angle formed by the junction of the Gambon with the Seine,
this plateau terminated abruptly in a mass of limestone rock three
hundred feet high, with its western face, nearly perpendicular,
looking down upon the Seine, its northern front, almost as steep,
towering above the Gambon, and only a narrow neck of rocky ground
at its south-eastern corner connecting it with the plateau, from
which its other sides were separated by deep ravines. The military
possibilities of such a position were obvious, and would doubtless
have been utilized long before they attracted the rival kings if
Andely had been a lay fief. For Philip it would have made an ideal
base for attack upon Rouen; Richard saw in it a matchless site for
the construction of an almost impassable barrier between Rouen and
Paris. Philip had tried in vain to win it by diplomacy. Richard took
advantage of a temporary absence of the archbishop from Normandy to
seize the Isle of Andely and begin to build a fort upon it. Walter
protested strongly, but in vain; Richard’s sole answer was to take
possession of the low ground enclosed between the three rivers and
the lake and begin to cover it with the foundations of a walled town
with trenches and barbicans on every side. The primate then told the
king in person that unless he made restitution and paid compensation
within three days, he must expect the ecclesiastical penalties due to
sacrilege. The warning was ignored; so Walter fulfilled his threat
by laying Normandy under Interdict and setting out for Rome.[1217]
Thither he was followed by envoys from Richard who were charged to
appeal to the Pope and endeavour to compose the dispute. Meanwhile
the king pushed on his work without intermission. In a few months
there arose on the Isle of Andely a tall octagonal tower encircled
by a ditch and rampart, on the western side of the island a bridge
giving access to the left bank of the Seine, and on the eastern side
another bridge linking the tower with the “New” or “Lesser” Andely
whose walls, standing four-square within the natural moat formed by
the surrounding waters, were likewise accessible from the mainland
only by two bridges, one at their northern corner and one on their
south-eastern side. The southern corner of the new town directly
faced the great “Rock of Andely”; and for that rock Richard was
designing a crown such as no other western architect had ever yet
dreamed of. His first act on the site, however, was of evil omen. It
seems that to protect his workmen at the New Andely against attack
from the French troops he had brought over a host of wild [Sidenote:
1196-7] Welshmen who harried the French border in a fashion scarcely
equalled by the worst ravages of the Brabantines; at last a large
body of them were intercepted by the French at the opening of the
Vale of Andely, surrounded, and slaughtered, to the number, it is
said, of three thousand four hundred. Richard was then at Andely, and
had there eighteen French prisoners in a dungeon. In his fury he had
three of them dragged to the top of the rock[1218] and flung down to
be dashed to pieces at its foot; the fifteen others he caused to be
blinded, and sent under the guidance of a one-eyed man to Philip,
who, “lest he should be thought inferior to the English king in power
or spirit, or to be afraid of him,” retaliated by causing three
English prisoners to be thrown down from a rock in like manner, and
blinding and sending back to Richard fifteen others, the wife of one
of them acting as guide.[1219]
[Sidenote: =1196-7=]
Meanwhile Richard was, through his agents at Rome, bargaining with
Archbishop Walter for an exchange of lands. At last he made an
offer which was distinctly advantageous to the metropolitan see of
Rouen; it was [Sidenote: _May_] accepted, and the Interdict was
raised.[1220] A year later the [Sidenote: 1198 _May_] king’s work at
Andely was complete. Round the foot of the great rock the ravines
which parted it from the surrounding lesser heights were dug out to
such a depth that access to it was impossible except by one narrow
neck of ground at its south-eastern end. A “fair castle”—as Richard
himself justly called it[1221]—whose general outline was determined
by that of its site occupied the top of the rock. The outer ward
was a walled-in triangle with sides of unequal length, and with its
apex facing south-eastward towards the natural junction left between
the rock and the plateau; at this point and at each of the other
two angles stood a round tower with walls ten feet thick; each of
the two longer sides of the curtain wall was strengthened with a
smaller tower; and the whole enclosure was surrounded by a ditch more
than forty feet deep, hewn out of the rock, with a perpendicular
counterscarp. Beyond this ditch on its north-western side lay the
inner ward. On three sides of this second enclosure were walls eight
feet thick; one wall, flanked by towers like those of the outer ward,
faced the north-western wall of the latter across the ditch; on the
other and longer sides the steep incline of the rock itself formed a
natural rampart and ditch below the walls which ran along its edge.
The line of the curtain on the side nearest to the river was broken
by a tower, round externally, octagonal within, and terminated at its
northern end by two rectangular bastions behind one of which stood
another round tower forming the base of the third ward or citadel.
A rampart, roughly elliptical in outline, was made by [Sidenote:
=1196-7=] excavating a ditch some fifteen to twenty feet wide, with
a perpendicular counterscarp. In one part of this ditch casemates
were cut in the rock. Two-thirds of the rampart were surmounted by
a series of seventeen semicircular bastions with about two feet of
curtain wall between every two; on the eastern side the line was
broken by a bridge leading from the rampart of the outer ward into
the inner enclosure, to which there was no other means of ingress
above ground; and directly opposite this bridge the bastions abutted
on a mighty keep-tower with walls twenty feet thick at the angles
and nowhere less than twelve feet, and with a wide outlook from the
windows in its upper stages over the river valley and the woodlands
of the Vexin. Between the keep and the round tower at the end of the
curtain wall were buildings for dwelling and storage; from these an
underground stair and passage beneath the rock gave access to some
outworks near its foot, where from a small tower a wall was carried
down to the river-bank; and from a point close to the termination of
this wall the river itself was barred by a double stockade across
its bed. “Behold, how fair is this year-old daughter of mine!” Thus
Richard is said to have exclaimed as he saw the last touches put
to the “Castle on the Rock.”[1222] Contemporary writers distinctly
imply that the whole scheme of the fortifications at Les Andelys was
devised and planned by the king himself; it was certainly carried
out under his constant personal supervision and direction. Some
of the peculiar features of the citadel or keep may probably have
been suggested to him by the fortresses which he had seen in Holy
Land, where the nature of the country and the circumstances of the
Frank settlers had led to the development of the science of military
architecture in forms hitherto unknown to western builders. However
this may be, the opportunity presented by the natural advantages of
the site was utilized to the uttermost in the construction of the
group of buildings crowned by the “Saucy Castle,” Château-Gaillard,
as Richard appropriately called it, which from the summit of the rock
seemed to look down in defiance and [Sidenote: =1196-7=] derision
upon the French king and his schemes for the conquest of Normandy.
The royal architect was further strengthening alike his military
and his political position by alliances with his most important
neighbours both to north and south. Count Baldwin of Flanders had for
six years been chafing under the loss of the southern half of his
county, annexed by the French king on the plea that the late Count
Philip had given it to Elisabeth of Hainaut, Baldwin’s sister and
the king’s first wife. In June 1196 Baldwin and Count Reginald of
Boulogne promised to support Philip Augustus “against all [Sidenote:
1197 _May-Sept._] men”;[1223] but in the following summer Baldwin
threw off his allegiance and became Richard’s sworn ally.[1224]
About the same time the guardians of Arthur of Britanny exchanged
pledges with Richard that neither they nor he would make peace with
France without each other’s consent; and a like agreement was made
between Richard and Count Theobald of Champagne,[1225] brother and
successor to the Crusader Count Henry, nephew by the half blood to
both the kings, and brother-in-law to Richard’s queen. The western
and northern sides and a considerable part of the eastern side of the
French Royal Domain were thus completely ringed in by the territories
of Richard and his allies, except in two places. These exceptions
were the united counties of Blois and Chartres and the little county
of Ponthieu. Louis of Blois still adhered to Philip; but as he stood
in the same degree of relationship to the two kings as did his cousin
Theobald of Champagne, there was always a possibility that he might
some day follow Theobald’s example. As for Ponthieu, Philip had given
Aloysia in marriage to its count, probably thinking he was driving a
wedge between Normandy and Flanders; but the wedge was too small and
too insignificant to be of any real use in keeping them apart. On the
other hand, the count of Flanders was on his northern and eastern
frontiers in direct touch with Richard’s German allies; and one at
least of these, the count of Hainaut, was also in direct touch with
Champagne. Richard was in fact gradually drawing round the Royal
Domain of France a circle which was already more than half completed;
and he was now politically in a position to bring almost the whole
of his own military resources to bear upon some of its uncompleted
sections in the west and south without fear of danger in his rear.
The voluntary adhesion of Britanny promised at least a temporary
respite from trouble in that quarter. In Aquitaine his determined
efforts to enforce order and tranquillity were at last beginning to
bear fruit. In 1195 he had granted the county of Poitou to his sister
Matilda’s son, Otto of Saxony;[1226] but Otto does not seem to have
ever actually taken possession of the county, and the government of
Poitou and its dependencies, and also of Gascony, continued to be
carried on as before, by seneschals appointed by the king. If these
officers needed assistance to quell internal revolt, they could
safely depend for it on Navarre; and the one remaining vassal of the
duchy with whom they might still have been unable to cope was won
over to the interests of his suzerain by the offer of a brilliant and
wealthy matrimonial alliance and a substantial increase of territory.
The count of Toulouse with whom Richard had fought of [Sidenote:
1196] old died in 1196, and the widowed Queen Joan of Sicily was
given in marriage by her brother to the new Count Raymond VI;[1227]
Richard renounced the old claim of the Poitevin counts to the
possession of Toulouse, restored the Quercy to its former owner, and
granted him the county of Agen as Joan’s dowry, with the stipulation
that it should always be held as a distinct fief of the duchy of
Aquitaine and should furnish the duke with five hundred men-at-arms
for a month when required for war in Gascony.[1228]
[Sidenote: 1197]
In the spring of 1197 hostilities re-commenced with a raid made by
Richard on the coast of Ponthieu; he set fire to the castle of S.
Valery, harried the surrounding country, seized five ships which
were bringing food into the harbour, hanged their skippers, and
appropriated their cargoes to feed his own men.[1229] A month later
Mercadier made a raid [Sidenote: _April 15_] on Beauvais and captured
its Bishop.[1230] Early in the summer [Sidenote: _May 19_] there came
an indication that the Vexin was not altogether contented under its
new ruler; Dangu, an important castle on the Epte, was voluntarily
surrendered to Richard by its lord, William Crispin. Philip at once
led an army to retake it and succeeded in so doing, but only after
a siege which occupied him so long that meanwhile Richard had time
to dash into Auvergne and capture ten of the French king’s castles
there,[1231] and Baldwin of Flanders to make himself master of
Douay and some neighbouring towns and lay siege to Arras. Philip
hurriedly razed Dangu and went to relieve Arras; at his approach
Baldwin withdrew into northern Flanders; Philip pursued him hotly,
but presently found himself entangled in a network of streams which
cut off him and his troops from either advance or retreat, provisions
or reinforcements, for the bridges over all the rivers in front and
rear and round about him were broken down by Baldwin’s orders. He was
reduced to sue for mercy and entreat Baldwin “not to sully the honour
of the French Crown,” declaring himself ready to make an amicable
settlement with Flanders and restore all its lost territory, “if the
king of England were excluded from the peace.” This condition Baldwin
rejected, and Philip was obliged to purchase release from his awkward
position by a compromise: Baldwin undertook to act as intermediary
between the two kings and invite Richard to a conference between them
“for the settlement of an honourable peace” which should include
his own confirmation by both in the restitution of his ancestral
possessions.[1232] The conference [Sidenote: _Sept. 8 or 17_] took
place early in September. As usual, the proposed peace dwindled to
a truce. Even this was won only by the influence of Archbishop
Hubert of Canterbury, who was then in attendance on his sovereign.
Its duration was fixed for a year from the ensuing Christmas or
Hilary-tide;[1233] [Sidenote: _Sept._] and its sole condition seems
to have been that each party should for that period continue holding
what he held at the moment[1234]—a condition which enabled Philip to
postpone indefinitely the promised restitution of southern Flanders.
The conference had been held “between Gaillon and Andely,”[1235] or
as another writer puts it, “at the Isle,”[1236] most likely the Isle
of the Three Kings, whose name suggests that it had been the scene
of meetings between Philip and the two Henrys, and which lies in the
Seine almost under the shadow of the Rock of Andely. Probably this
was the occasion on which Philip first saw the castle, then fast
rising on that rock, and the completed square of walls enclosing the
Lesser Andely, with the bridges and fortified outpost on the smaller
island, barring the river. His courtiers—so runs [Sidenote: 1197?]
the story told by Gerald of Wales—could not refrain from expressing
their admiration of this wonderful piece of military architecture.
Irritated by their praise of his rival’s work, he swore aloud that
he wished the new fortifications were built wholly of iron, for if
they were, he would none the less bring all Normandy, and Aquitaine
as well, under his rule. The boast was reported to Richard: “By God’s
throat!” swore the Lion-heart, “if yon castle were built of neither
iron nor stone, but wholly of butter, I would without hesitation
undertake to hold it securely against him and all [Sidenote: _Oct.
16_] his forces.”[1237] A month after the conference the exchange of
lands between duke and primate was formally completed at the Castle
on the Rock, by a charter in which Richard set forth his motive for
the transaction: “The town of Andely and certain adjacent places
which belonged to the see of Rouen being insufficiently fortified,
the way through the same into our land of Normandy was open to our
enemies.”[1238] That way was now so effectually barred that six years
were to elapse before the enemy, notwithstanding his boast, made
any attempt to cross or break the barrier; and when it fell at last
after a six months’ siege, its fall was due less to the skill of its
assailant than to the apathy of Richard’s successor in its defence.
The truce was scarcely made when politics of a wider range began
to claim the attention of both the rival kings. The Emperor Henry
VI was still under sentence of excommunication for his treatment
of the captive king of England and for other violations of
international right and justice committed in his pursuit of a dream
of world-conquest in which he seems to have curiously anticipated a
much later bearer of the Imperial title. The aged Pope Celestine had
warned him in 1195—“What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole
world and lose his own soul?”[1239] and the warning came back to him
when on his way to Holy Land in autumn 1197 he fell sick unto death
at Messina. He hurriedly restored to the Roman See the property of
which he had robbed it, and despatched an envoy to Richard, offering
to refund his ransom in the form of either money or lands. Before
an answer could be received he died, on Michaelmas eve. The Pope
ordered that he should not be buried, unless with Richard’s expressed
consent, until this offer was fulfilled. While Richard was keeping
Christmas at Rouen, envoys from the archbishops of Cologne and Mentz
and other German princes came to tell him that all the magnates
of Germany were to assemble at Cologne on February 22 to elect an
Emperor; “and they bade him, in virtue of the oath and fidelity by
which he was bound to the Emperor and to the Roman Empire, come
to Cologne at the aforesaid time without fail, in order that he,
as a chief member of the Empire, might be with them to elect, by
God’s help, an Emperor fit for the imperial office.” After some
consideration and consultation Richard sent back with the envoys some
bishops and nobles to be present at the election in his stead. “He,”
says Roger of Howden, “greatly feared to go there himself, lest he
should again fall into their hands, unless security were given him
of a safe-conduct for the journey there and back; and no wonder, for
he had not yet paid to the German magnates all that he had promised
them for helping to his liberation; and it was on account of him that
the Emperor’s body was still unburied.”[1240] The German electors
were much divided among themselves. The late Emperor’s only son was
already, by the Pope’s consent, crowned king of Sicily;[1241] but he
was a child; nobody wanted an infant Emperor. Some of the magnates
seem to have thought that jealousy and rivalry among themselves might
be best appeased by setting, or at least proposing to set, over all
of them a sovereign of another nationality; certain of them nominated
King Richard of England. It was probably merely in opposition to
this party that some others—“but they were few”—proposed Philip
of France.[1242] The majority inclined to Duke Henry of Saxony,
Richard’s sister’s son, who by birth was head of the most illustrious
of the princely houses of Germany, and had in 1196 succeeded his
father-in-law as Count Palatine. For Henry Richard, [Sidenote:
1197-8] through his representatives at Cologne, threw all his
influence into the scale. But Henry himself was absent in Holy Land,
and it was felt that to leave the Empire without a head till his
return might involve grave danger; his partizans, including Richard,
therefore transferred their support to his brother Otto, whose life
had been spent almost entirely in Normandy and England, at the court
first of his grandfather Henry II and afterwards at that of his
uncle Richard, and who was perhaps the more acceptable to the German
electors because he neither held nor could claim any territorial
possessions in Germany;[1243] his sole personal connexion with it was
his marriage with a daughter of the duke of Louvain, one of the North
German [Sidenote: =1197-8=] feudataries with whom Richard had made
alliance in 1194. Otto was accordingly elected, and on July 12, 1198,
he was crowned at Aix.[1244]
One of the warmest advocates of the election of Otto was Count
Baldwin of Flanders, chiefly because the king of England was known
to be on the same side.[1245] The king of France, on the other hand,
naturally took alarm at a choice which promised to strengthen the
alliance between Richard and Baldwin and give to both these princes
the countenance, if not the active support, of the greater part
of the German feudataries and of their sovereign. There was one
disappointed candidate for the imperial crown who openly refused to
acknowledge the authority of his successful rival. This was Philip,
duke of Suabia, the late Emperor’s brother. Between him and his royal
French namesake an alliance was concluded on S. Peter’s day.[1246]
It could, however, be of little avail to either of them against the
coalition by which in a few weeks they were confronted. Henry of
Saxony, returned from Holy Land, was welcomed by his English uncle
at Les Andelys,[1247] and thence proceeding to his homeland gave his
unqualified assent and approval to the election of his brother as
Emperor.[1248] Before the end of August, the duke of Louvain, the
counts of Brienne, Flanders, Guines, Boulogne, Perche, Blois, and
Toulouse, with Arthur of Britanny (or rather the nobles who governed
the duchy in his name) “and many others,” made a confederacy with
Richard, swearing to him and he to them that neither they nor he
would make peace with the king of France without the common consent
of them all.[1249] On September 6 Baldwin of Flanders laid siege
to St. Omer; its surrender, three weeks later, was followed by
that of [Sidenote: _Sept. 27_] Aire and several other neighbouring
towns.[1250] At the same time the truce was broken on the Norman
border. One contemporary English writer represents Philip as the
aggressor; but his story seems to be only a confused enlargement
[Sidenote: =1197-8=] on the contents of a letter written by Richard
in which there is no suggestion of any such thing. Richard, according
to his own account, on Sunday, September 27, crossed the Epte by the
ford near Dangu, surprised and captured two neighbouring castles with
their garrisons and contents, and [Sidenote: _Sept. 28_] returned
at night by the same way. Next day he learned that Philip, having
heard of this inroad, was setting out from Mantes with some five or
six hundred men. Richard at once went forth with a few attendants,
but left the main body of his troops on the river-bank, thinking the
French would cross the ford and encounter them on the other side.
Philip, however, turned towards Gisors. Before he could reach it
he was almost surrounded by the troops of Richard and Mercadier.
They chased him so hotly and pressed him so closely that the bridge
at Gisors broke down under the weight of horses and men crowding
upon it. The French king himself was reported to have “swallowed
some water,” as his rival jestingly expressed it; he escaped,
however, unharmed, but twenty of his knights were drowned; three
were prostrated by Richard’s own lance, a hundred captured by his
men, and a hundred others fell into the hands of Mercadier and his
Brabantines; there were countless prisoners of lower rank, and the
captured destriers numbered two hundred, “of which one hundred were
covered with iron.”[1251]
This affair was one of Richard’s most daring personal adventures;
he himself acknowledged that he had “staked his own head and his
kingdom to boot, overriding the advice of all his counsellors”—“but,”
he added, “it was not we who thus defeated the king of France, but
God and our right did so by our means.”[1252] These words and the
action on which they are a comment are alike characteristic of the
Lion-heart. Amid all the overwhelming political, diplomatic, and
financial cares of his latter years, he was still knight-errant
enough to glory in a wholly [Sidenote: =1197-8=] unnecessary
adventure which might have cost him his life, and which had, after
all, failed of its practical object, the capture of Philip. It may,
however, have been partly prompted by another motive than the spirit
of mere knightly daring. Richard was literally at his wits’ end
for money; and without money the league which he had been forming
against Philip was certain to break up ere long. His alliances with
Flanders and the other feudataries of the Empire and with some of the
French king’s own subjects rested on a basis of subsidies, revenues,
or substantial rewards of some kind, promised to the nobles in
consideration of their pledge to assist him against Philip. To none
of them had he as yet been able to fulfil his plighted word in this
respect. Château-Gaillard was well worth the cost of its building,
but the cost was great. “You know there is not a penny at Chinon”
(where the Angevin treasure was kept), he wrote in a _sirventes_
addressed to the brother-counts of Auvergne some time in the years
1197-9.[1253] His means were, in fact, insufficient for the payment
of even the troops absolutely necessary to guard the Norman frontier.
When he found himself so close to Philip on the road to Gisors there
may have flashed across his excited brain the dream of a capture
which should not only place his rival in his power, but lead to the
filling of his coffers as those of the Emperor had so recently been
filled, with the ransom of a king. He had already been reduced to
the expedient of a change of his royal seal, the repudiation of all
grants made under the old one, and the exaction of heavy payments for
their confirmation or renewal.[1254] On his new seal the three lions
passant-gardant appeared for the first time as the armorial bearings
of the king of England. Its earliest impression now known is attached
to a charter dated May 22, 1198[1255]; and the process of cancelling
old grants [Sidenote: =1197-8=] and selling new ones went on till
the very eve of his death eleven months later.[1256]
Neither Richard nor Philip, in fact, was in a position to make war
on a scale large enough to bring it to a decisive issue. The raids
and counter-raids therefore continued. [Sidenote: _Sept._] Philip
burned Evreux, ravaged the country as far as Beaumont-le-Roger, and
would have burned Neufbourg, had not John anticipated him by firing
it at the moment of the French attack. Mercadier raided Abbeville at
fair-time, and returned with a mass of plunder taken from the French
merchants there. The earl of Leicester made an attempt on Pacy.[1257]
Richard built a new fort on an island in the Seine and gave it the
provocative name of Boutavant, “Push-forward”; Philip began to build
one facing it, which in a like spirit of bravado he called Gouletot,
“Swallow-all.”[1258] An obscure entry in the Norman Exchequer Roll
for the year seems to imply that the kings reverted for a moment to
a scheme which four years before had been proposed and rejected,
for the settlement of their quarrel by a fight between selected
champions, to be held in presence of both at Les Andelys[1259]; but
again the proposal led to nothing. At length Archbishop Hubert, being
in Normandy, went at Philip’s desire and with Richard’s consent to
the French court to discuss terms of peace. Philip offered to restore
all the territory and castles which he had seized except Gisors,
concerning the rightful ownership of which he declared himself
willing to accept the decision of six Norman barons to be chosen by
himself and six French barons to be chosen by Richard. The English
king, however, would make no peace save on condition of its including
the count of Flanders and all the other feudataries of France who had
transferred their homage to himself; so the negotiations resulted
only in another truce till S. Hilary’s day.[1260] At the appointed
time the kings [Sidenote: _Jan. 13_] came to a meeting between Vernon
and Les Andelys; Richard on the Seine in a boat, from which he
refused to land, Philip on horseback on the river-bank. The colloquy
was adjourned, seemingly to give opportunity for the intervention
of a mediator, Peter of Capua, a cardinal [Sidenote: _Jan._] whom
the new Pope Innocent III had recently sent to France as legate. By
the advice of Peter and of some magnates on both sides, the truce
was prolonged for a term of five years; it was confirmed by oath,
and both kings dismissed their troops, bidding them return to their
homes.[1261]
The biographer of Philip Augustus says that “through the trickery of
the king of England” the agreement was not confirmed by an exchange
of hostages.[1262] It may have been on this plea that four French
counts through whose territories Mercadier and his men had to pass
on their way southward ventured to ignore the truce and set upon the
Routiers, many of whom they slew. Philip swore that this outrage had
no sanction from him. Presently afterwards, however, when Richard,
thinking Normandy was safe for a while, was on his way to visit
his southern dominions, Philip not only resumed the fortification
of Gouletot, but also destroyed the neighbouring forest. At these
tidings Richard hurried back to Normandy, and sent his chancellor to
the French court to declare the truce dissolved unless Philip would
pull down the new fortress. Philip, urged by the legate, promised to
do so. Then Richard declared he would have either a full settlement
of all their disputes or no peace at all. A form of peace was drawn
up; its provisions were that the king of France should restore to
the king of England all the lands which he had taken from him either
in war or by any other means, except Gisors, in compensation for
which he granted to Richard the gift of the archbishopric of Tours;
Philip’s son Louis was to marry Richard’s niece, the daughter of the
king of Castille; and furthermore, Philip was to swear that he would
to the utmost of his power assist Richard’s nephew Otto to obtain the
imperial crown. Richard on his part was to give to Louis of France,
with the hand of his niece, twenty thousand marks of silver and the
castle of Gisors as her dowry. The execution of the treaty, however,
was postponed till Richard should return from Poitou.[1263]
The word “Poitou” had in recent years acquired another meaning
besides its original one. Richard had never styled himself count of
Poitou since his accession to the Crown[1264]; it is doubtful whether
he had ever done so since its restoration to his mother in 1185. The
title by which he asserted his rights over his southern dominions was
that of “Duke of the Aquitanians.” His grant of the county of Poitou
to Otto in 1195 seems to have been merely verbal, ratified by neither
charter nor investiture, and carrying with it no permanent authority
and no legal claim to the higher dignity of the Aquitanian dukedom;
and on Otto’s return to Germany in June 1198 Richard resumed full
possession of the county.[1265] The word “Aquitaine” was dropping out
of use. The administration of all the king-duke’s dominions south of
the Loire was carried on by seneschals appointed by and acting for
him, one for “Gascony” and one for “Poitou”; the former appellation
representing the country south of the Garonne, the latter embracing
the county of Poitou proper and all its dependencies or underfiefs
between the Garonne and the Loire.[1266] Richard’s last visit to
any part of these dominions had been a flying one in December 1195,
when he kept Christmas at Poitiers.[1267] A double motive seems now
to have urged him southward. The troublesome half-brothers Aimar of
Angoulême and Aimar of Limoges were, it appears, again plotting or at
least credibly suspected of plotting treason against him.[1268] He
had also been informed of a wonderful treasure-trove on the land of a
baron in the Limousin. A peasant ploughing near Châlus had met with
an obstacle which, when disinterred, proved to consist of something
which is described [Sidenote: _March_] as “an Emperor with his wife,
sons, and daughters, all of pure gold, and seated round a golden
table,” and also, it appears, some ancient coins.[1269] The lord of
Châlus was one Achard[1270]; from him the treasure was claimed by the
viscount Aimar as overlord. Richard, as Aimar’s overlord, claimed it
in his turn,[1271] and by the law of treasure-trove his claim seems
to have been justified. According to one account, Aimar actually
sent him no small portion of what had been found; but Richard would
be content with nothing short of the whole.[1272] He seems to have
suspected that the remainder was still hidden at Châlus, for it was
to Châlus that he laid siege, on Wednesday, March 4.[1273] Achard
himself had fled to the viscount of Limoges for protection.[1274] In
vain he begged for a truce till after Easter, and offered to submit
to a sentence of the royal court of France.[1275]
The castle of Châlus, whose ruined keep-tower still stands on a
low hill above the little river Tardoire, contained at the moment
about forty persons; only two of these were knights, and some of the
others were women.[1276] For three [Sidenote: _March 24-6_] days
Richard’s miners dug under the walls while he with his crossbowmen
rode round about them, discharging a [Sidenote: _Friday March 26_]
shower of missiles into the enclosure.[1277] On the third day the
little garrison offered to surrender on condition of safety for
life and limb and the retention of their arms; but Richard refused,
swearing he would capture and hang them all.[1278] That afternoon he
again rode forth, accompanied by Mercadier, round about the castle,
shooting with his crossbow at any man whom he saw on the wall; and
this time he rashly went without any defensive armour except an
iron headpiece and a buckler. His daring was more than equalled by
one man among the besieged, who with a crossbow in one hand and
a frying-pan in the other had stood nearly all day on a bastion
of the tower, dexterously turning aside with his makeshift shield
every missile aimed at him, and carefully scanning the ranks of the
besiegers,[1279] evidently in the hope of discovering their leader.
From one account it appears that when at last his opportunity came,
he had discharged all his quarrels, and the bolt which he shot at the
unprotected figure was one of the enemy’s own which he snatched from
a crevice in the wall where it had stuck just within his reach.[1280]
Richard, hearing the sound of the missile in the air, looked up and
greeted the bowman with a shout of applause. That look cost him his
life. He bent down to shelter himself under his shield, but too late
to avoid the arrow; it struck his left shoulder at the joint of the
neck, glanced downward, and became fixed in his side.[1281] No one
but Mercadier was near enough to see exactly what had occurred. To
him Richard gave orders for a general assault to be made on the
castle[1282]; then, quietly and alone, he rode back to his tent.
There he tried to pull out the arrow; the shaft broke, leaving the
barb imbedded in the wound, and he was compelled to send for a
surgeon to extract it. One was found, says an English chronicler,
“among that accursed tribe, the followers of the impious Mercadier,”
and it is to this man’s handling of the case that the same writer
ascribes its fatal termination; but this is sufficiently accounted
for by his own description of the drawbacks attending the operation,
performed hurriedly by lantern-light on a patient so fat that the
steel, buried in his flesh, was extremely difficult to find, and when
found, still more difficult to remove[1283]; a patient, moreover,
whose character combined with his physical constitution to make him
an extremely unmanageable invalid. A second doctor seems to have been
afterwards called in;[1284] but in spite of all the remedies that
were applied the wound grew daily more painful and its swelling and
discoloration more ominous.[1285]
A furious assault made by Mercadier on Châlus after the king was
wounded had resulted in the capture of the castle and its defenders.
Richard caused them all to be hanged, except the man who had shot
him.[1286] He then despatched some of his troops to besiege two
neighbouring castles, Nontron and Montagut, “for he purposed in
his heart to destroy all the castles and towns of the viscount of
Limoges.”[1287] Soon, however, he began to realize that his days
were numbered. He wrote to his mother, who was at Fontevraud, asking
her to come to him. Every precaution had been taken to prevent his
condition becoming known outside the little group of four trusted
nobles who alone were admitted to his presence;[1288] from these he
now exacted an oath of fealty to John as his destined successor, to
whom he devised the kingdom of England and all his other lands. He
ordered that all his castles and three parts of his treasure should
likewise be delivered to John; he bequeathed all his jewels to his
nephew Otto of Germany, and the remaining fourth part of his treasure
to be distributed among his servants and the poor.[1289] He sent
for the captive crossbowman and questioned him: “What evil have I
done to thee? Why hast thou slain me?” “Thou didst slay my father
and my two brothers with thine own hand; thou wouldst have slain me
likewise. Take on me what vengeance thou wilt; freely will I suffer
the greatest torments thou canst think of, now that thou, who hast
brought so many and so great evils on the world, art stricken to
death.” Richard answered, “I forgive thee my death,” and ordered that
the man should be liberated and sent away safely with a gift of a
hundred English shillings.[1290] Then he called for a chaplain, made
his confession and received the Holy Communion.[1291] By this time
probably his mother was with him; she herself records that she was
present at his death, and that he “placed all his trust, after God,
in her, that she would make provision for his soul’s welfare with
motherly care to the utmost of her power.”[1292] He made his own
arrangements for the disposal of his body, ordering that his brain
and some internal organs should be buried in the ancient Poitevin
abbey of Charroux, his heart at Rouen, and the embalmed corpse at his
father’s feet in the abbey church of Fontevraud.[1293] He [Sidenote:
_April 6_] received Extreme Unction on April 6, the Tuesday in
Passion week, “and as the day was closing, he also ended his earthly
[Sidenote: _April 11_] day.”[1294] On Palm Sunday his body, wrapped
in the robe in which he had been attired at his crown-wearing at
Winchester five years before,[1295] was buried by his father’s old
friend Bishop Hugh of Lincoln and his mother’s friend Abbot Luke
of Torpenay in the place which he had chosen for it.[1296] His
heart—said to be remarkable for its great size[1297]—was enclosed in
a casket of gold and silver and placed, as a most precious treasure,
among the holy relics in the cathedral church of Rouen.[1298]
NOTES
NOTE I
_Richard and Leopold of Austria at Acre_
The German account of the quarrel between Richard and the duke of
Austria after the taking of Acre is as follows:
“Capta igitur civitate, rex Anglorum signa triumphalia sui exercitus
turribus affigi praecepit, titulum victoriae ex toto sibimetipsi
satis arroganter adscribens. Hacque de causa cum per civitatem
transiret, vexillum ducis Leopoldi turri quam ipse cum suis
obtinuerat affixum vidit, suumque non esse recognoscens, cujusdam sit
percontatur. Qui Leopoldi ducis Orientalium esse accepto responso,
eumque ex parte civitatem obtinuisse comperiens, maxima indignatione
permotus vexillum turre dejici lutoque conculcari praecepit; insuper
ducem verbis contumeliosis affectum sine causa injuriavit.” Otto of
S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 323.
The English accounts are two:
(1) “Dux Austriae, et ipse unus ex veteribus obsessoribus Accaronis,
regem Anglorum secutus a pari in suae sortis possessionem, quia
praelato coram se vexillo visus fuit sibi partem vindicare
triumphi; et si non de precepto, de voluntate tamen regis offensi,
dejectum est vexillum ducis in coenum, et in ejus contumeliam a
derisoribus conculcatum.” R. Devizes, 52. (2) “Cum enim civitatem
Accon irrumperent Christiani, et diversi diversa civitatis hospitia
caperent, in nobilissimo civitatis palatio signum ducis [Ostrici]
elevatus est. Quod intuens rex et invidens, manu militum valida
vexillum dejecit, ducemque tam grato spoliavit hospitio.” Gerv.
Cant., i. 514.
Rigord (118) says: “Ducis Austriae vexillum circa Accon cuidam
principi [rex Ricardus] abstulit et in cloacam profundam, in
opprobrium ducis et dedecus, vilissime confractum dejecit.”
Otto is the only German authority on the subject: for the brief
mention of it in _Ann. Colon._ (Pertz, xvii. 802), which is
practically in agreement with him, cannot be considered as such,
and Magnus of Reichensperg’s version (_ib._ 519) is of no value,
because it places the incident not at Acre, but at the rebuilding of
Ascalon, in January 1192, after Leopold had left Palestine (Kellner,
_R. Löwenherz Deutsche Gefangenschaft_, 47-8). It is curious that
the writer who gives the fullest details about Leopold’s Crusade
and about the later relations between Leopold and Richard gives
no account of the affair at all, merely saying with reference to
Leopold’s capture and imprisonment of the king “Una et efficiens
causa fuit quod eum in obsidione Aconae quasi abjectum reputavit”
(Ansbert, in Appendix to Preface to R. Howden, iii. cxl). It is also
noticeable that Otto writes as if Richard had claimed possession of
the whole of Acre for himself alone; there is no mention of Philip.
Probably the tower to which Leopold’s banner was affixed stood in
Richard’s half of the city.
NOTE II
_The Capitulation of Acre_
The terms on which Karakoush and El-Meshtoub agreed to surrender
Acre are given, in various forms, by nine contemporary or almost
contemporary authorities.
(1) King Richard, in a letter to the Abbot of Clairvaux, R. Howden,
iii. 131.
(2) Bohadin, _Rec. Hist. Orient._, iii. 237; Schultens’s edition, 179.
(3) _Estoire de la Guerre Sainte_, ll. 5199-224, and _Itin. Reg.
Ric._, 231, 232; these two are here practically identical and may be
counted as one.
(4) _Gesta Ric._, 178, 179.
(5) R. Howden, iii. 120, 121.
(6) R. Diceto, ii. 94.
(7) R. Coggeshall, 32.
(8) R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 51, 52.
(9) Ibn Alathyr, _Rec. Hist. Orient._, II. 46.
All these writers mention, among the conditions promised by the
Moslems, the restoration of the relic of the Cross; and all except
one—R. Devizes—mention also the release of a number of Christian
prisoners: the king and R. Diceto say fifteen hundred; R. Coggeshall
says seven hundred, some of whom the kings were to select; Ambrose
and the _Itinerarium_ say two thousand prisoners of distinction and
five hundred of lower rank; the _Gesta_ say fifteen hundred ordinary
prisoners and two hundred knights, these latter to be specially
selected by the kings; R. Howden follows this latter account, but
reduces the first number to a thousand; Ibn Alathyr mentions only
the “selected” prisoners, whose number he gives as five hundred. The
earlier of the two extant redactions of Bohadin (_Recueil_, iii.
237) has “five hundred prisoners of ordinary condition, and one
hundred others of rank, whom the Franks might ask for by name”; but
in the later redaction (represented by Schultens’s edition) the
figures are fifteen hundred and one thousand. This later redaction,
of which the only known MS. was written in the year after Bohadin’s
death, is considered not to be his own work (_Recueil_, iii. 374);
but its variations from the earlier recension seem entitled to some
consideration, as they are so nearly contemporary and may have the
force of corrections; this may be the case in the passage under
consideration here.
Neither King Richard, R. Diceto, nor R. Devizes, mentions a money
payment. The _Estoire_, _Itinerarium_, _Gesta Ricardi_, R. Howden,
Bohadin, and Ibn Alathyr make the promised sum two hundred thousand
“bezants” (_Est._), “talentorum Saracenicorum” (_Itin._), “dinars”
(Bohadin and Ibn Alathyr). R. Coggeshall absurdly says seven hundred
thousand bezants. The only authorities for the special payment
promised to Conrad are the two Moslem ones, and as to its amount
the two recensions of Bohadin again differ; the earlier says four
thousand gold pieces, the later fourteen thousand, viz. ten thousand
to Conrad himself and four thousand to his knights. Ibn Alathyr also
says Conrad was to have fourteen thousand; and the later recension
of Bohadin is followed by Abu Shama in his extract from that author
(_Recueil_, v. 25, 26), as to both the number of prisoners and the
amount of money.
The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ say that “the chief men among the
Turks in Acre” were to be held as hostages by the Franks till the
conditions of the treaty were fulfilled. Richard and Bohadin say, and
the _Gesta_, R. Howden, and R. Coggeshall imply, that the hostages
were to comprise the whole garrison. The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_
assert that the conditions were offered by the Turks in Acre with
Saladin’s knowledge and consent; and the _Itinerarium_ adds that
the term appointed for their fulfilment was that day month, _i. e._
August 12. The king says “Pactione etiam ex parte Saladini plenius
firmata ... diemque ad haec omnia persolvenda nobis constituit.” R.
Diceto says “Qui” (_i. e._ the Saracens in Acre) “communicato cum
suis consilio coeperunt tractare de pace talibus pactionibus quod
Saladinus Sanctam Crucem certo die restitueret,” etc. The _Gesta_ and
R. Howden make the term forty days from the surrender, _i. e._ August
20. Bohadin (238) represents Saladin as ignorant of the whole matter
till after the surrender, and Ibn Alathyr and R. Coggeshall do the
same; the latter says that Saladin “nimium ex animo consternatus,
facturum quod petebatur se esse spopondit,” while the two Arab
writers represent the Sultan as at first refusing to confirm the
treaty and afterwards accepting its conditions, but, according to
Bohadin, with a modification as to the term for payment which brings
the date for the first instalment practically to the time named in
the _Itinerarium_, viz. a month after the surrender.
NOTE III
_The Advance from the Two Casals to Ramlah_
The Frank writers give no precise date for the advance of the host in
1191 from “between the two Casals” to the neighbourhood of Ramlah.
Ambrose says they reached the former position on the eve of All
Saints, and stayed there “full fifteen days or more” (_Est._, ll.
7199-209). The _Itin._, 289-90, agrees with him. This should mean
that they set out again on November 15 or 16. Ambrose, according
to the printed text of the _Estoire_, says the journey to the next
encampment took two days: “L’ost erra par mi la plaine, Sor les
biaus chevals peus d’orge; _Vint en deus jors_ entre Seint Jorge e
Rames; la s’allerent tendre Por plus gent e vitaille atendre” (ll.
7464-8). Thus they would arrive there—_i. e._ between Lydda and
Ramlah—on November 17 or 18. The poet further says that the weather
afterwards compelled them to take shelter within the two towns, “e
fumes la bien sis semaines” (ll. 7471-7; _Itin._, 298-9, says the
same). We presently find that they made their next advance—to Beit
Nuba—on January 3. Thus we arrive at November 22 as the date of
entering Lydda and Ramlah, and the encampment “in the plain” appears
to have lasted five or six days (November 17 or 18-22). Our best
Arab authority, Bohadin, unluckily does not mention the matter. Ibn
Alathyr (_Rec. Hist. Or._, II. i. 54) says “the Franks set out from
their camp at Jaffa for Ramlah on 3 Dulkaada” = November 22; the same
date is given for their “advance in the direction of Ramlah” by Abu
Shama (_ib._, v. 48), but without any clue to his authority for the
statement. Ibn Alathyr gives this same date, 3 Dulkaada, as that on
which “the Franks advanced from Ramlah to Natroun” (_l.c._); this
is doubtless a confusion, made either by author or scribe, between
“Dulkaada” and “Dulheggia,” as Richard—though, indeed, not the
host—did remove to Natroun on December 22 or 23 (= 3 or 4 Dulheggia).
The Frankish and the Arab authorities may be partially reconciled by
taking the “six weeks” of Ambrose and the _Itinerarium_ as covering
the whole period spent not only within the towns, but also “between”
them. In that case, however, the stay between the two Casals must
have been more than fifteen days; it could not have been less than
twenty days, indeed twenty-two seems a more reasonable reckoning,
for it is hard to see how two days can possibly have been spent in
marching even from Casal of the Plains (the more remote of these two
Casals) to either Lydda or Ramlah, a distance of less than eight
miles. One writer does expressly mention “twenty-two days” in his
account of this part of the Crusade; but he does so in connexion with
the sojourn, not between the Casals, but between Lydda and Ramlah.
Ambrose’s lines, 7464-8, quoted above, are in the _Itinerarium_ (298)
represented as follows: “Exercitus noster fixis tentoriis _inter
S. Georgium et Ramulam sedit viginti et duobus_ diebus, ut gentem
expectaret venturam et annonam.”
To me this passage in the _Itinerarium_ suggests a possibility of
reconciling practically all the dates and notes of time given by all
our authorities, Arab and Frankish, relating to this matter. It is
not inconceivable that the original authority—whoever he may have
been—for the “twenty-two days” had through a confusion of memory
substituted the duration of the stay between the two Casals for
that of the stay near and in Lydda and Ramlah, and _vice versa_.
In that case the correct dates would stand thus: Between the two
Casals, twenty-two days, November 1-22; in the plain between Lydda
and Ramlah, “full fifteen days,” November 23-December 8; retirement
into the two cities December 8, and further advance (to Beit Nuba)
on January 3, “six weeks” from the date of encampment between them.
Whether these coincidences are merely accidental, and the “twenty-two
days” a sheer blunder due to the Latin “translator” having misread
“vint _en_ deux jors” as “vint _e_ deus jors,” in Ambrose’s line
7466, or whether in that line as we now have it _en_ is a scribe’s
error for _e_, and ll. 7464-6 should be read as a single sentence,
with a parenthesis stuck into the middle of it for the sake of
rime—“E l’ost erra par mi la plaine (Sor les biaus chevals peus
d’orge) Vint e deus jors entre Seint Jorge e Rames”—whether the
“translator” rendered _erra_ in l. 7464 by _sedit_ because he thought
thus to make better sense of his version of l. 7466, or whether the
poet meant that the host roamed about the plain in which its camp
was set, and perhaps even shifted the camp about, in vain efforts to
avoid the enemies and the rain (see ll. 7469-75, especially l. 7473,
“Iceles pluies _nos chacerent_”); these are questions involving too
many other questions for a discussion of them to be attempted here.
NOTE IV
_Casal des Plains and Casal des Bains_
I have ventured, in defiance of the printed text of the _Estoire_,
to follow the writer of the _Itinerarium_ in giving to Richard’s
lurking-place on the night of January 2-3, 1192, the name of Casal
of the Baths. “Casellum Balneorum” occurs in the _Itinerarium_
twice. In p. 298 we read that while the host lay between Lydda and
Ramlah “pluviae a sedibus nostris nos exturbabant, intantum ut rex
Jerosolimorum et gens nostra infra S. Georgium ad hospitandum se
transferrent et in Ramulam, _comes vero de S. Paulo ad Casellum
Balneorum_.” The last eight words are not represented at all in
the _Estoire_. In pp. 306, 307, of the _Itinerarium_ we are told:
“Tertia post Circumcisionem Domini die, cum exercitus noster ad
progrediendum” [from Lydda and Ramlah to Beit Nuba] “se sollicitus
expediret, deformium multitudo Turcorum qui eadem nocte praeterita
juxta Casellum de _Planis_ in insidiis delituerant inter frutecta
prosiliit diluculo in viam observandam per quam noster transiturus
erat exercitus.... Rex quippe Ricardus, cui prius innotuerat
de praedictis Turcorum insidiis, propterea quaque eadem nocte
ad Casellum _Balneorum_ consederat in insidiis, ut videlicet
insidiantibus insidiaret, mane progrediens,” etc. In the _Estoire_
the corresponding passage runs thus: “Tier jor d’an noef, la matinee,
Esteit une ovre destinee; Sarazins, les laides genz brunes, Sor le
Casal des Plains as dunes Le seir devant ja se bucherent, E tote
nuit illoc guaiterent Desqu’al matin que il saillirent Al chemin de
l’ost.... Le rei d’Engletere aveit, Qui cel embuchement saveit, Por
ço al Casal des _Plains_ geu,” etc. (ll. 7717-24, 7729-31).
It has been suggested that the “Casellum Balneorum” of _Itin._, 298,
may represent Amwas (= “Fountains”), otherwise called Nicopolis (see
Stubbs’s note to _Itin._, _l.c._). This identification is possible;
but it seems very unlikely that a small fraction of the host should,
for no apparent reason, put itself so nearly into the lion’s mouth by
going to camp eight or nine miles in advance of the rest, and less
than two miles from the encampment of Saladin, which at that time
was at Natroun. Moreover, in a later passage common to _Estoire_ (l.
9846) and _Itinerarium_ (369) we find “la fontaine d’Esmals,” “ad
fontem Emaus,” in a context which plainly shows that these names
stand for Amwas-Nicopolis; but in p. 307 of _Itinerarium_ the context
seems to preclude an identification of Casellum Balneorum with Emaus
= Amwas, and to point to some place much further north or north-west;
and later commentators have found such a place, bearing a name which
translates the Latin one more exactly than Amwas, in Umm-el-Hummum,
near Mirabel. On the other hand, the extant text of the _Estoire_, as
we have seen, has nothing at all answering to “Castellum Balneorum”;
it makes the Turkish ambush and the king spend the night of January
2-3 at, or close to, one and the same place, the Casal of the Plains.
Whence, then, did the Latin writer get his “Casal of the Baths”? He
can hardly have invented it for himself. If his work be really a
translation of that of Ambrose, he must either have made it from a
copy which had _Bains_, not _Plains_, in l. 7731, or he must have
had some other source of information which made him deliberately
substitute “Baths” for “Plains” in his rendering of that line. The
substitution cannot be explained as a misreading on his part, since
“Casal des Plains” in l. 7720 is correctly represented in his text
by “Casellum de Planis.” That he knew, from a source other than the
_Estoire_, something about the Casal of the Baths is clear from his
earlier mention of that place, in p. 298. A different theory as to
the relation between the two books suggests that that source may have
been personal knowledge. However this may be, his second mention of
“Casellum Balneorum” certainly makes the passage in which it occurs
far more intelligible than the corresponding passage in the existing
text of the _Estoire_. Ambrose’s story, as it stands there, is
scarcely credible. The Turks and the king lie in wait for one another
all night, the former “on the sandhills above the Casal of the
Plains,” the latter at the Casal of the Plains itself, yet neither
party catches the other till, evidently to the utter surprise of the
Turks, they meet before the camp at Ramlah or Lydda, to which they
must, if this version of the affair be correct, have ridden at almost
the same time, parallel with and in close proximity to each other for
about eight miles, and almost from one and the same starting-point!
Surely, by the light—whencesoever derived—of the Latin version, we
can see that either Ambrose himself or the scribe of the extant MS.
of his work has erroneously written _Plains_ instead of _Bains_ in
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