Sicily, kings of, _see_ Tancred, William
Sidon, Reginald of, 199
Spain invaded by Moors, 302
Stephen, seneschal of Anjou, 93
Suabia, Philip of, 319
Taillebourg, siege of, 29-31
Talmont, 60, 115-116
Tancred, king of Sicily, 124, 130-133, 137
Tell-Ayadiyeh, 163
Thouars, viscount of, 7
Toron, Humphrey of, 159, 184, 213
Torpenay, Luke, abbot of, 329
Toulouse, county of, invaded by Richard, 66
Toulouse, Raymond V, count of, 6, 7, 11, 12, 55, 66, 75-77
Toulouse, Raymond VI, count of, 314
Tournaments, licensed by Richard, 299
Tours taken by Philip and Richard, 89;
Richard receives scrip and staff at, 117
Trenchemer, Alan, 280
Trou burnt by Philip Augustus, 78
Turnham, Robert of, 148, 280
Turnham, Stephen of, 93, 142
Tyre, 151-153, 159
Valeria, Saint, 11
Vaudreuil, 294, 302
Vendôme, Burchard, count of, 78
Verneuil besieged by Philip, 294;
meeting of kings at, 303
Vexin, the, disputes about, 23;
the Norman, ceded to France, 305
Vézelay, Richard and Philip at, 118
Vienna, Richard captured near, 270
Vigeois, Geoffrey of, 37
Wales, scutage of, 106
Wales, South, Rees, prince of, 106
William the Lion, king of Scots, relations with Henry II, 108;
with Richard, 109-111, 289-290, 292
William, king of Sicily, 121, 124
Worms, agreement of Henry VI and Richard at, 281-282
York, Geoffrey, archbishop of, 103, 107, 113
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] R. Diceto, ii. 67, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe), iii. 3. Both
the prophet and his commentator ignore the fact that what they call
Eleanor’s “third nesting” was really her sixth, as she had already
had, besides her two elder sons, two daughters by her first marriage
and one by her second.
[2] Rog. Howden, iii. 215.
[3] _Chron. Anon._ in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._ xii. 121. She had joined
him before the end of August; _Chron. de Bello_, 76.
[4] R. Torigni, a. 1157; Pipe Roll 3 Hen. II, 107.
[5] R. Torigni, a. 1157.
[6] W. Newburgh, lib. ii. c. 4.
[7] Place from R. Diceto, i. 302; day from _Chron. S. Albini Andeg._,
a. 1157.
[8] “MS. in Lord Arundel’s collection,” as quoted by James,
Collections, vii. 34 (Bodl.); Stubbs, preface to R. Howden, iii.,
xviii. note 2.
[9] In 1220 Henry III granted to another person “septem libratas
redditûs in Chippenham quas Hodierna nutrix domini Regis Ricardi
avunculi nostri habuit,” _Close Rolls_, ii. 416 b. That the grant
to Hodierna was made by Richard may be inferred from there being no
trace of the payment in the Pipe Rolls of his father’s reign. Stubbs
notes that “this could not have been the whole of her property, for
her land in 30 Hen. III” [1246-7], “was talliaged at 40_s._”; also
that “the parish of Knoyle Hodierne in Wiltshire still preserves her
name.” Pref. to R. Howd. iii., xviii. note 2.
[10] R. Diceto, i. 293.
[11] See especially _Chron. S. Maxent._, a. 1060 and 1110, and _Hist.
Pont. et Com. Engolism._, Labbe, _Thesaurus_, ii. 268 (a. 1070-1101).
[12] Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, _Thes._, ii. 304. This was in
1136-7. M. Richard (_Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 51) thinks Emma was only
betrothed, not married, to the duke. His arguments are not strong
enough to convince me against the distinct statement of Geoffrey of
Vigeois.
[13] “Lemovicæ comes” (_sic_) “habet feudum de abbate S. Martialis
castellum de Petra Buffiera et turrim de castello quod est super
Charnix, Lemovicense castrum, vicariam de turre, Bernardii
castellum de Cambono S. Valeriæ. Pro his omnibus debent hominium
facere abbatibus cunctis omnes vicecomites qui feudum istud
tenuerunt”—Geoffrey, the writer, had twice seen it performed—“...
Abbas tamen dominium totius castri Lemovicini habere debet, vicecomes
vicariam tantum.... Burgenses vero argenti pondere fulti vicecomiti
vix obtemperant, quando minus monachis” Geoff. Vigeois, 333. For the
significance of “castrum Lemovicense,” see the next footnote.
[14] “Lite mota inter cives et hospites, Dux irritatus est; tunc
muros castri, qui non multo tempore fuerunt constructi, funditus
evertit, pontemque disrupit.... Procurationem noluit Albertus Abbas
in urbem facere Duci, dicens non debere extra septa reddere castri.”
Geoff. Vigeois, 308. Limoges in those days, and long after, was a
sort of double town of which one part, comprising the cathedral
church and its precincts and seemingly called the “city,” belonged to
the bishop, and the other part to the abbot of S. Martial’s, under
homage to whom it was governed by the viscount. Each part had its own
enclosure. There was no castle in the ordinary sense of that word;
but the abbot’s part, which was the more populous and important part
of the town, seems to have taken the title of _castrum_. The case was
somewhat like that of the city of Tours and the _Castrum S. Martini_,
or Châteauneuf.
[15] Geoff. Vigeois, 308-10.
[16] R. Torigni, a. 1159.
[17] Treaty in Lyttelton, _Henry II_, iv. 174.
[18] “Ad corredium Ricardi filii Regis £10 6_s._ 8_d._ per breve
Regis,” Pipe Roll 9 Hen. II (1162-3) 71. Cf. an entry, _ib._, 72; “in
porcis et ovis et minutis rebus contra festum filii Regis 100_s._”
Henry was in London that year in the first week of March (Eyton,
_Itin._ Hen. II, 59), and again on October 1 (_Mater. for Hist.
Becket_, iv. 201). It is possible that the royal family may have been
there also in September, and that the “festum filii Regis” may have
been Richard’s birthday; but it is perhaps more likely to have been
that of young Henry, February 28.
[19] R. Torigni, a. 1165.
[20] Gerv. Cant., i. 205.
[21] _Mater. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. ccliii., vi. 74.
[22] R. Torigni, a. 1167. Cf. _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. cclxxvii.,
vi. 131.
[23] R. Torigni, _l.c._ Cf. _Chronn. S. Albini_ and _S. Sergii_, a.
1166.
[24] R. Torigni, _l.c._
[25] Geoff. Vigeois, 318; R. Torigni, a. 1168; _Mat. for Hist.
Becket_, vi. 456.
[26] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, _l.c._
[27] “Robertus de Silli,” _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456; “Robertus
de Selit,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318; “Robertus et frater ejus de Silleio,”
R. Torigni, a. 1167. The name appears as “de Silliaco” in _Mat. for
Hist. Becket_, vii. 165, 178, 247, 606, 610, 616. It cannot be Sillé
in Maine as I suggested in _Angevin Kings_, ii. 137; it can hardly be
anything else than Seilhac.
[28] R. Torigni, _l.c._, names “Haimericus de Lizennoio”; the writer
of Ep. 434 in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456, names “Gaufridus de
Lezinniaco” and “Haimericus de Rancone.” There seems to be no other
trace of an Aimeric de Rancogne, if indeed Rancogne be the place
intended here and not Rancon in La Marche, as to the ownership of
which I can discover nothing. There was an Aimeric de Lusignan, and
also a Geoffrey de Lusignan, and there was furthermore a Geoffrey de
Rancogne of whom we shall hear again. To me it seems most probable
that the Lusignan here referred to was Aimeric, and that his
Christian name has (owing to a confusion between him and his brother)
been transposed with that of the lord of Rancogne.
[29] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[30] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456.
[31] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[32] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 409.
[33] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 409.
[34] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[35] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 1615-52. According to R. Torigni,
_l.c._, Patrick was killed “circa octavas Paschae,” _i. e._ April 7,
the very day of the conference.
[36] “Rex Henricus senior filio Richardo ex voluntate matris
Aquitanorum tradidit Ducatum.” Geoff. Vigeois, 318.
[37] Cf. John of Salisbury’s letter in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi.
506-7, R. Torigni, a. 1169, and Gerv. Cant., i. 208.
[38] R. Torigni, a. 1169.
[39] Geoff. Vigeois, 318. Bernard Itier, ed. Duplès-Agier, 58.
[40] “Novusque dux ab omnibus proclamatur,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318-19.
Geoffrey does not give the year explicitly, but he does so implicitly
by saying that Raymond of Toulouse did homage to Richard “anno
sequenti.” S. Valeria’s body was at S. Martial’s abbey at Limoges;
_ib._, 285. According to Geoffrey and the Chronicle of S. Martial’s
(ed. Duplès-Agier), 209, she was the protomartyr not only of
Aquitaine but of Gaul.
[41] _Gesta Hen._, i. 35-6. The presence of Eleanor and the date of
the homage—“Dominica qua cantatur Invocavit Me,” _i. e._ February
25—are mentioned only by Geoff. Vigeois, 319, who adds: “Feria
quarta, alias sexta, heroes qui per dies septem concilium celebravere
Lemovica discedunt ab urbe”; _i. e._ the kings and counts were at
Limoges either from Thursday, February 22, to Wednesday, 28, or
from Saturday, February 24, to Friday, March 2. This assembly of a
week’s duration at Limoges is clearly to be identified with the one
described by the local chronicler, Bernard Itier, in a very corrupt
passage which his latest editor, M. Duplès-Agier, has printed (p.
58) from the much mutilated MS. with conjectural emendations, thus:
“Anno gracie MCLXXII ... [Alienor Regina] et filio Ricardo et com ...
[et regibus de] Arragonia et de Navarra [venerunt] ... Lemovicas et
per viii dies in ca[stro Lemovicensi moram] fecerunt.” February 1173
in our reckoning would be February 1172 in Bernard’s reckoning, as
in the kingdom of France the year began at Easter. I think that for
“Alienor Regina” we should substitute “Rex cum Regina,” and supply
“[ite Tolosæ]” after “com.” What the king of Navarre—Sancho VI,
father of Berengaria whom Richard ultimately married—had come for,
there is nothing to show. Count Gerard of Vienne, whom R. Diceto (i.
353) adds to the list of those present, was a Provençal subfeudatary
of Raymond of Toulouse, and so may have been concerned in Raymond’s
dispute with Alfonso. The statement of R. Diceto (i. 353-4) that
“quia Ricardus Dux Aquitaniæ, cui facturus esset homagium comes
Sancti Ægidii, presens non erat, usque ad octavas Pentecostes negotii
complementum dilationem accepit,” is clearly erroneous.
[42] _Gesta Hen._, i. 41-2. R. Diceto, i. 355.
[43] Geoff. Vigeois, 319.
[44] _Gesta Hen._, i. 42.
[45] _Ib._, 44.
[46] W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 27.
[47] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.
[48] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.
[49] _Gesta_, i. 49; but R. Torigni, a. 1173, mentions only young
Henry and the counts of Flanders and Boulogne.
[50] Cf. _Gesta_, _l.c._; R. Diceto, i. 373, etc.
[51] R. Howden, ii. 52.
[52] _Gesta_, i. 59. Cf. R. Howden, ii. 53.
[53] _Gesta_, i. 63.
[54] _Ib._, 46-7.
[55] Geoff. Vigeois, 320-3.
[56] Richard, _Ctes. de Poitou_, ii. 173, from _Archives historiques
de la Gironde_, i. 388.
[57] Richard the Poitevin, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xii. 420, 421, a
passage which M. Richard, _Ctes._, ii. 174, note 2, says relates to
1173-4, not 1186-8 as formerly supposed.
[58] R. Diceto, i. 380. Cf. _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1174.
[59] _Gesta_, 71.
[60] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, lib. iii. dist. 8 (Anglia
Christiana Soc. edition, 106).
[61] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 76, and R. Howd., ii. 66.
[62] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[63] R. Howd., ii. 67.
[64] _Gesta_, i. 77-9.
[65] See _Angevin Kings_, ii. 165, note 7.
[66] R. Diceto, i. 398.
[67] _Ib._ and R. Howd., ii. 71.
[68] _Gesta_, i. 78.
[69] See this clause in the treaty, _ib._, 77.
[70] _Ib._, 82-4.
[71] _Gesta_, i. 101. The place is there called “Castellum super
Agiens.” M. Richard, _Ctes. de Poitou_, ii. 183, calls it “le château
du Puy de Castillon”; cf. _ib._, 134, “Castillon sur Agen, place
extrêmement forte,” from R. Torigni, a. 1161, “Castellionem super
urbem Agennum, castrum scilicet natura et artificio munitum,” taken
by Henry after a week’s siege in 1161. It seems to be identical with
Grand-Castel, on the river, a little above Agen.
[72] _Gesta_, i. 114.
[73] _Ib._, 115.
[74] “In liberatione esnecce quando rex junior transfretavit
£7 10_s._ per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que
transfretaverunt cum eo ... £7 15_s._ per breve regis. Et item
in passagio esnecce quando Ricardus filius regis transfretavit
vii_l._ and x_s._ per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que
transfretaverunt cum eo vi_l._ per breve regis.”—Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II
(1175-6), 199.
[75] R. Diceto, i. 407.
[76] _Gesta_, i. 121. I am uncertain whether “Montigernac” is meant
for Montignac, or Jarnac, or for both; very likely the latter, as the
two places are close together, and the writer not being familiar with
the country may easily have run two names into one.
[77] Cf. _Gesta_, 120, 121, with R. Diceto, i. 414.
[78] _Gesta_, i. 131-2. The writer’s chronology is obviously
confused, but the closing date of the series may be correct.
[79] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[80] _Gesta_, i. 127.
[81] _Ib._, 195-6.
[82] _Ib._, 131, 132.
[83] _Ib._, 132.
[84] _Ib._, 168.
[85] Alex. III Ep. in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xv. 954, 955. Cf.
_Gesta_, i. 180, 181.
[86] _Gesta_, i. 168.
[87] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 180-1 with the Pope’s letter, _Rer. Gall.
Scriptt._, xv. 954-5.
[88] _Gesta_, i. 181, 182.
[89] _Ib._, 190, 191; place from R. Diceto, i. 422.
[90] R. Howden, ii. 143.
[91] _Gesta_, i. 191-2; place and date from R. Diceto, i. 422.
[92] _Gesta_, i. 195.
[93] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[94] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 195-7, R. Diceto, i. 425, and R. Torigni, a.
1177.
[95] _Gesta_, i. 196.
[96] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[97] I infer this from the fact that neither she nor her husband,
Guy of Comborn, seem ever to have put forth any claim to the county.
Geoff. Vigeois, 324, speaks as if she were still living at the time
of its sale. She may have died soon after, and as she was childless
(_ib._, and Chron. MS. printed in Duplès-Agier, _Chron. de Limoges_,
188), whatever rights she might have claimed would die with her.
[98] _Gesta_, i. 197; R. Howden, ii. 147-8; and cf. Geoff. Vigeois,
324, and _Chron. S. Mart. Limoges_, 188, which gives the date October
7, but Adalbert’s own charter (_Gesta_ and R. Howd., _ll.cc._) says
“mense Decembri.” G. Vigeois gives the sum paid as 5000 marks;
the _Chron. S. Mart._, 189, R. Torigni a. 1177, and R. Diceto, i.
425, make it 6000 marks of silver, and R. Torigni adds “terram ...
valentem, ut idem rex dixit, viginti millia marcas argenti.” The
_Gesta_ and R. Howden both insert a copy of Adalbert’s charter, but
the writer of the former must have copied the figures wrongly, for
he makes the sum only fifteen pounds Angevin; in Roger’s version it
is 15,000 pounds Angevin. Both versions add twenty mules and twenty
palfreys.
[99] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[100] He was with his father and brothers at Angers at Christmas,
1177; R. Torigni, _ad ann._
[101] “Cum magno exercitu _in Pictaviam_ profectus,” says our
authority, _Gesta_, i. 212; but clearly he must mean either “in
Gasconiam” or “ex Pictavia.”
[102] _Gesta_, i. 212, 213.
[103] _Ib._, 212.
[104] R. Diceto, i. 431, 432. The _Gesta_, i. 212, say the siege
began on May 3 and lasted only three days.
[105] _Gesta_, _l.c._; cf. R. Torigni, a. 1179, who evidently did not
know that Pons belonged to Geoffrey.
[106] R. Diceto, i. 432; _Gesta_, i. 213.
[107] R. Torigni, a. 1179.
[108] R. Diceto, i. 432.
[109] “Ricardo comiti Pictaviae l.m.,” Pipe Roll 25 Hen. II
(1178-9), 101. “In passagio esneccae quando Ricardus comes Pictaviae
transfretavit,” _ib._, p. 107.
[110] _Itin. Ric._, 144.
[111] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.
[112] _Itin._, _l.c._
[113] “Species digna imperio,” _ib._; “formae dignae imperio,” Gir.
Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, _l.c._
[114] _Itin._, _l.c._
[115] “Hic leo noster plusquam leo.” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._,
dist. iii. c. 8.
[116] _Ib._
[117] An obvious instance is Richard’s great-grandfather, King
Henry I, who was called “the Lion of Justice.” Two of Richard’s
own contemporaries are known as Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony,
and William the Lion, king of Scots; though in this last case the
appellation was probably derived merely from the cognizance on his
shield.
[118] Cf., _e. g._, _Coronement Loois_, l. 1807—“C’est Fierebrace qui
cuer a de lion.”
[119] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” _Estoire de la Croisade_, l.
2310.
[120] Bertrand de Born in his sirventes often speaks of Richard by
a nickname—“Oc e No,” “Yea and Nay.” Its use seems to be peculiar
to Bertrand. Some modern writers have taken it as intended to imply
that Richard was light of purpose, or of a wavering disposition.
As Clédat points out (Bertran de Born, 101-2), such an explanation
would be quite out of harmony not only with Richard’s real character
as displayed in his actions from the very outset of his rule in
Aquitaine, but also with every other indication of Bertran’s opinion
of him. We might almost more reasonably conjecture that although
when Richard did swear he used some very extraordinary oaths (“Per
gorgiam Dei,” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._ dist. iii. c. 25, on
which Gerald comments “quoniam his et similibus sacramentibus uti
solet”; “Par les gambes Dieu,” _Hist. G. le Mar._ ll. 8839, 9367),
his usual practice was to “swear not at all,” but so to act that a
simple statement from him of his will and purpose, “yea” or “nay,”
was recognized as being no less positive and final than if he had
confirmed it with an oath.
[121] Cf. the character given by a Flemish chronicler, “Richard ...
ke otre toz les boins estoit preus e vaillans.” _Hist. des Ducs_, 84.
[122] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.
[123] _Ib._
[124] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8. Cf. Bertrand
de Born, “Ar ve la coindeta sazos,” ll. 33-5:
Bom sap l’usatge qu’a’l leos Qu’a re venenda non es maus, Mas contra
orgolh es orgolhos.—
where the context shows that the “lion” stands for Richard.
[125] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, _l.c._
[126] _Ib._; Gerv. Cant. i. 303; and cf. R. Diceto, ii.
19—“Pictaviensibus ... quos Ricardus indebitis vexationibus et
violenta dominatione premebat.”
[127] His brutal treatment of his Breton and “Basque” prisoners in
1183 is a wholly different matter. Those prisoners were not his
own subjects; they were foreign invaders; the charge of cruelty
mentioned above had no reference to them. Moreover, even their fate
does not necessarily indicate that Richard was of a specially cruel
disposition, for that fate does not appear to have outraged the
public opinion of their day, at any rate in Aquitaine.
[128] _Gesta_, i. 292.
[129] Geoff. Vigeois, 317. It is a pity that Geoffrey’s rime,
“Richardus, qui ad probitatis opera nunquam exstitit tardus,” cannot
be reproduced in an English translation; and also that “prowess”
in its modern use conveys such an imperfect idea of the medieval
_probitas_. The rime may be unintentional; but it is far more likely
to be derived from some vernacular couplet current at the time “...
En Richartz, Qu’ad obras de proesa ja n’estet tartz,” or something
similar.
[130] R. Torigni, a. 1179. See the various names applied to these
“malignants,” “whose teeth and arms had nearly devoured Aquitaine,”
in Geoff. Vigeois, 328, 334.
[131] _Ib._, 325; for date see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.
[132] See B. de Born’s _sirventes_, “Ges no me desconort,” ll. 22-3,
where he speaks of “the three counts of Angoulême”—“li trei comte fat
Engolmesi.”
[133] Geoff. Vigeois, 326.
[134] In p. 327 Geoffrey says in reference to a period which from
the context seems to be about the end of January 1181: “Tunc genus
inimicitiarum Richardi et Alienoris in speciem amicitiae vertitur.”
As there is no indication elsewhere of “unfriendliness” between
Richard and his mother, nor of anything which might have given
rise to it, nor of anything likely to produce a change in their
feelings towards each other at this time; and as, moreover, their
intercommunications must for the past seven years have been extremely
limited if not altogether non-existent, seeing that Eleanor had
been throughout that time in confinement in England, I cannot but
suspect that this passage is corrupt. Possibly “Alienoris” may be a
transcriber’s mistake for “Ademari,” and the person really meant may
be Aimar of Limoges.
[135] Geoff. Vigeois, 327.
[136] R. Diceto, ii. 9; cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 297.
[137] Geoff. Vigeois, 326; for the year see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42,
note.
[138] “Qui” (_i. e._ the Duke) “cum puella terram obtinere tentavit,”
says G. Vigeois, 326. A statement made by some modern writers that
Richard wanted to marry the girl and thus annex her county seems to
be without authority.
[139] G. Vigeois, 326.
[140] Gerv. Cant. i. 303.
[141] Hautefort was in the diocese of Périgord, but in the viscounty
of Limoges; cf. the two biographies of Bertrand de Born, Thomas, _B.
de Born_, li., Stimming (ed. 1892), 51; the “contradiction” which
Stimming (3) finds on this point exists only in his own imagination,
and he is mistaken in branding as “false” the second biographer’s
statement that Bertrand “fu de Lemozi,” for Bertrand himself speaks
of “Nos Lemozi” in his sirventes “Eu chant,” l. 44, Thomas, 21,
Stimming, 69.
[142] _Razo_ of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7; Stimming,
6-7.
[143] Provençal biography of B. de Born, No. I, Thomas, li.
[144] _Sirventes_, “Lo coms m’a mandat,” ll. 45, 46, Thomas, 6.
[145] See “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” ll. 9-14.
[146] Another Aimar, William, and Elias. It was the two former
who tried to get possession of Angoulême in succession to their
eldest brother Vulgrin (G. Vigeois, 326). Elias was still
living in January-February 1183, when “Helias et Sector Ferri”
are coupled together by G. Vigeois (332) as “Vulgrini defuncti
comites Engolismensis fratres.” It is doubtful whether “Sector
Ferri”—Taillefer, a surname used by all the counts of Angoulême at
this period—here represents William or Aimar. Some modern writers
date William’s death in 1181. He was at any rate still alive in June
of that year; G. Vigeois (326) says definitely “_Guillermus_ et
Ademarus defuncto inhiabant succedere fratri,” _i. e._ to succeed
Vulgrin who died in June 1181, see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.
[147] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 35-8.
[148] “Tals me plevi sa fe No feses plait sens me,” _ib._ ll. 39-40.
Obviously this “pledging of faith” could not apply to Bertrand alone.
Nor was he the only one towards whom it was broken, as we shall see.
[149] Cf. “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 1-3, with “Ges no mi desconort,” ll.
18-25.
[150] _Razo_ of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7. Bertrand
himself mentions some of these lesser barons in “Pois Ventadorn,” ll.
2, 9, 10.
[151] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 17-30.
[152] _Gesta_, i. 197.
[153] G. Vigeois, 324.
[154] He was there in February or March 1181, and again in May and on
June 24, 1182; _ib._ 326, 330.
[155] “Pois Ventadorn,” l. 4.
[156] G. Vigeois, 330, 331.
[157] _Ib._, 320.
[158] “Quod protinus adimpletur,” says G. Vigeois, 326.
[159] See the last six lines of “Pois Ventadorn,” with the note of M.
Thomas, _B. de Born_, 15. I venture to think M. Thomas is mistaken
in assuming that “Talhafer” represents either Elias or William. We
know from John’s treaty with Philip in 1193 that at some time or
other Aimar had done homage to Philip (“Comes Engolismensis tenebit
terram suam a Rege Franciae, illam scilicet de qua fecit se hominem
[illius?]; a me,” _i. e._ John, “vero tenebit aliam terram quam a
me debet tenere,” _Fœdera_ I. i. 57); there is nothing to show that
he was the youngest of the family; it seems more likely that he was
the next to Vulgrin in age, and therefore, if Maud’s claim was to be
ruled out, next to Vulgrin also in the line of succession.
[160] G. Vigeois, 331.
[161] The district in which Clairvaux stood—the Loudunais—had
originally belonged to Poitou; it was annexed to Anjou towards the
end of the tenth century by Geoffrey Greygown, who held it under
homage to the Poitevin Count William III. This homage became obsolete
after Geoffrey Martel’s victory over William VIII in 1033. Richard
may possibly have had some idea of reviving the Poitevin claim to
the overlordship of the Loudunais; but it is more likely that he
simply did not know, and did not care to ascertain, exactly where the
frontier line ran.
[162] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 33-40.
[163] _Gesta_, i. 294; R. Diceto, ii. 18, where young Henry is made
to say that Richard fortified Clairvaux “contra suam” (_i. e._ young
Henry’s) “voluntatem.”
[164] G. Vigeois, 332; Bern. Itier, a. 1182.
[165] G. Vigeois, 332—“Olivarus frater Petri vicecomitis de
Castellone,” _i. e._ Castillon in Périgord. A month earlier Aimar
of Limoges had taken and destroyed the “Burgum S. Germani”; _ib._
Probably this means S. Germain-les-Belles, near Limoges, and Aimar
was merely chastising a vassal of his own; at any rate there is
nothing to imply that the matter concerned Richard in any way.
[166] Cf. “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28, and “Chazutz sui,” ll. 29-31.
[167] “Chazutz sui,” ll. 25-36.
[168] “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28.
[169] See “No posc mudar,” ll. 13-16, and Thomas, Introd. xv. I
venture, however, to think that “Rancon” probably stands not for the
place now so called, in Haute-Vienne (Thomas, 77, note 4), _i. e._
in the Limousin, but for Rancogne in the Angoumois, the home of the
well-known Geoffrey, lord also of Pons and of Taillebourg.
[170] See “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 11-14, with the reference to
“quem disses [el coms, _i. e._ Richard] antan.”
[171] _Gesta_, i. 291.
[172] _Ib._, 294, 295.
[173] _Ib._, 295.
[174] _Gesta_, i. 295.
[175] R. Diceto, ii. 18—“homagium et ligantiam.” Cf. _Gesta_, i.
291-2.
[176] R. Diceto, _l.c._
[177] _I. e._, probably, to an explanation that the homage was not
meant to take effect till young Henry should be in his father’s place.
[178] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[179] _Ib._, 295.
[180] “Vehementer excanduit, incongruum esse dicens, ut dicitur, cum
eodem ex patre, cum eadem ex matre, traxisset originem, si fratrem
primogenitum aliqua specie subjectionis superiorem agnosceret; sed
sicut ipsi fratri suo regi lege primogenitorum bona debebantur
paterna, sic in bonis maternis aequa lance successionem legitimam
vindicabat,” R. Diceto, ii. 18, 19. That is to say, in fact, he
claimed to hold Aquitaine, _after his father’s death_, as a direct
underfief of the kingdom of France, and not as a part of the Angevin
dominions at all. In other words, he claimed the right to break up
the Angevin empire; which was precisely what Henry II was trying to
prevent.
[181] _Gesta_, i. 292.
[182] R. Diceto, ii. 19.
[183] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 292 and 295.
[184] “Transacta Purificatione B. Mariae,” G. Vigeois, 332. Geoffrey
dates the quarrel between the king’s sons “tertio idus Decembris,
celebrata Domini Nativitate.” Can he mean “tertio idus Januarii,”
January 11? This might very well be the date of the final quarrel
between young Henry and Richard.
[185] _Gesta_, i. 296.
[186] G. Vigeois, _l.c._; _Gesta_, i. 292, 293.
[187] _Gesta_, i. 293. It is hardly possible that Geoffrey can have
had time to go in person into Britanny as the _Gesta_ imply; but
it is clear from Bertrand de Born’s poem “D’un sirventes nom chal”
that he was deep in the Aquitanian plot before his eldest brother’s
adhesion to it was known; no doubt, therefore, he had secretly made
his preparations beforehand for the crisis which had now come.
[188] G. Vigeois, 332.
[189] G. Vigeois, 332.
[190] _Gesta_, i. 292. G. Vigeois, _l.c._, mentions among the
“barones et principes” who “tunc temporis conspiraverunt adversus
Ricardum,” besides young Henry and Geoffrey of Britanny, Elias, and
“Taillefer” of Angoulême, Aimar of Limoges, Raymond of Turenne, Peter
viscount of Castillon and his brother Oliver of Chalais, Fulcaud of
Archiac (in Saintonge) and Geoffrey of Lusignan. This last was now
at Limoges, and in the most intimate counsels of the young king; see
_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 6408-13.
[191] R. Howden, ii. 274.
[192] G. Vigeois, _l.c._
[193] Saint Pierre du Queiroix, “de Quadrivio,” situated near the
north-east angle of the old town or Castrum S. Martialis; _ib._
[194] “Santius de Sarannas et Curbanus seu Curbaranus,” G. Vigeois,
333; in all other places where Geoffrey mentions the latter he
uses the longer form of the name. “Curbaran” is the name of a
Saracen prince in the _Chanson d’Antioche_. In the printed editions
of Geoffrey’s history the other leader figures as _Sautius_ and
_Saucius_, but these are probably misreadings of _Santius_ and
_Sancius_, Latin for Sancho or Sanchez. Sérannes or Serranes is the
name of a cluster of hills in what is now the department of Héraut;
most likely this bandit chief had a favourite lurking-place there;
cf. “Willekin of the Weald.”
[195] G. Vigeois, 333, 334.
[196] _Ib._, 333-4.
[197] “Citramarinos principes.”
[198] G. Vigeois, 335-6.
[199] _Gesta_, i. 299.
[200] G. Vigeois, 335.
[201]
“Tost l’agral reis joves matat, Sil coms nol [nos, Stimming] n’agues
ensenhat; Mas aissils clan els enserra Qu’Engolmes a per fort cobrat
E tot Saintonge delivrat Tro lai part Finibus Terra.”
—“Eu chant,” ll. 7-12. Bertrand’s modern commentators have assumed
that the nominative to “a cobrat e ... delivrat” is “lo reis joves,”
and understood ll. 9-12 as referring to the invasion of the Angoumois
and Saintonge by the Routiers in behalf of young Henry. I venture
to suggest that the true nominative is “lo coms”—_i. e._, the count
of Poitou. There could be no “recovery” of the Angoumois either
by or for young Henry, who had never had any authority there. The
whole structure and context of the lines indicate that they refer to
Richard. “Finibus Terra,” Finisterre, doubtless stands here, like
“Broceliande” in another of Bertrand’s poems (“D’un sirventes nom
chal,” l. 33), simply for Britanny.
[202] “Eu chant,” ll. 5-12, 16-18. On l. 8, “Sil coms,” etc., see
Stimming’s note, 155.
[203] G. Vigeois, 336.
[204] “Eu chant,” ll. 37-42.
[205] G. Vigeois, 338.
[206] _Ib._, 337.
[207] _Ib._, 336, 338.
[208] _Ib._, 337; cf. _Gesta_, i. 302, 303.
[209] G. Vigeois, 337.
[210] On comparing the words of G. Vigeois, _l.c._—“Castrum ...
dux jure praelii cepit”—with those of Bertrand himself—“Autafort,
Qu’eu ai rendut Al senhor de Niort, Quar l’a volgut” (“Ges no mi
desconort,” ll. 5-8), I think this must be the real meaning of both.
[211] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 9-14.
[212] G. Vigeois, _l.c._
[213] “Nom chal d’Autafort, Mais far dreit ni tort, Qu’el jutjamen
crei Monsenhor lo rei”; last four lines of “Ges de far sirventes.”
[214] “Ges de far,” ll. 9, 10.
[215] Literally “as true as any silver”—“fi com us argens,” “Ges no
mi desconort,” l. 50.
[216] _Gesta_, i. 308.
[217] A. Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 373, from a document in
the cartulary of Fontevraud. The “five years” which John is there
stated to have spent in the abbey must be prior to February 1173;
this appears from later notices of his whereabouts cited in my _John
Lackland_, pp. 7, 8.
[218] _Gesta_, i. 308.
[219] G. Vigeois, 342.
[220] _Ib._, 338.
[221] Cf. _ib._, 338, 339, Rigord (ed. Delaborde), i. 36, and on
the “Pacifici,” R. Torigni, a. 1183, Gerv. Cant., i. 300, 301, and
Rigord, i. 37-39.
[222] G. Vigeois, 338.
[223] “Lobar seu le Bar,” _ib._, 323, 324, 326, 342. In a Life
of S. Stephen of Grandmont which seems to date from the time of
Pope Clement III (1187-91) or soon after, the same man is called
“Lupardus.” Labbe, _Biblioth._, ii. 676.
[224] G. Vigeois, 342.
[225] _Gesta_, i. 306.
[226] _Gesta_, i. 306.
[227]
“E li reis l’aveit mult amee; Des que il esteit coens de Peitiers, La
coveita sis covestiers.”
_Est. de la Guerre Sainte_, ll. 1150-2.
“A multo tempore quo comes erat Pictavensis ... plurimum desideravit
eam,” _Itin._, 175.
[228] _Gesta_, i. 311.
[229] _Ib._, 319.
[230] _Gesta_, i. 319-21.
[231] _Ib._ 333, 334.
[232] _Ib._, 337.
[233] _Ib._, 313.
[234] _Ib._, 337, 338.
[235] _Gesta_, i. 338.
[236] _Ib._, 318, 319; R. Howden, ii. 288.
[237] _Gesta_, i. 322.
[238]
“Membrelh [Felip] sa sor el maritz orgolhos Que la laissa e no la vol
tener; Aquest forfaitz mi sembla desplazer, E tot ades que s’en vai
perjuran, Quel reis Navars l’a sai dat per espos A sa filha, per que
l’anta es plus gran.” B. de Born, “Seu fos aissi senher,” ll. 22-8.
Thomas (73) and Stimming (36) are agreed that this _sirventes_ dates
from 1188. Stimming seems to think the lines quoted above refer to
an event of quite recent occurrence; but anything like an avowed
troth-plight between Richard and Berengaria at any time except
between December 1183 and March 1186 would have been an insult to
France so flagrant that neither Richard nor Sancho is likely to have
run the risks which it would have involved. During that period,
however, such a betrothal would give Philip no lawful ground for
complaint, although a mischief-maker might easily use it, either at
the time or some years later, to excite the French king’s resentment
against a man who had thus failed to appreciate the honour of
becoming his brother-in-law and preferred a daughter of Navarre to a
daughter of France.
[239] _Gesta_, i. 343, 344; date from R. Diceto, ii. 40.
[240] _Gesta_, i. 345.
[241] R. Diceto, _l.c._
[242] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[243] _Gesta_, i. 345.
[244] _Ib._, 347, 350.
[245] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 43, 44, with _Gesta_, i. 353.
[246] _Gesta_, ii. 5.
[247] Rigord, _l.c._
[248] Gerv. Cant., i. 346; cf. Rigord, _l.c._, who mentions only the
dowry, not the bride.
[249] Rigord, _l.c._
[250] _Ib._, 78.
[251] Cf. Rigord, 78, _Gesta_, ii. 6, and Gerv. Cant., i. 369.
[252] Gerv. Cant., i. 371-3.
[253] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 2.
[254] “Johannes ... cujus promotionis causa haec omnia mala
sustinui.” Gir. Cambr., _De. Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.
[255] R. Diceto, ii. 49. Gerald, _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c.
2, says one year; but Ralf is more to be trusted on this point. On
the other hand, Ralf’s date—Tuesday, the eve of S. John—is a day too
early to be compatible with the circumstantial narrative of Gervase.
[256] Rigord, i. 79.
[257] _Gesta_, ii. 7.
[258] Gerv. Cant., i. 373.
[259] _Gesta_, ii. 7.
[260] _Ib._, 9.
[261] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 5.
[262] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 50; W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.
[263] Gerv. Cant., i. 389.
[264] W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.
[265] _Gesta_, ii. 29. This writer, Roger of Howden (ii. 334), and R.
Diceto (ii. 51) date the conference January 21; Gervase (i. 406) says
“about S. Vincent’s day” (January 22); Rigord (83) and William the
Breton (_Gesta Ph. Aug._, 187) say January 13. Probably it began on
S. Hilary’s day, was suspended owing to the arrival of the archbishop
of Tyre, and was resumed on January 21.
[266] _Gesta_, ii. 29-30. W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23, represents the
conference as held in consequence of the archbishop’s coming, and
for no other purpose than to consult as to what could be done for
Palestine. Rigord (_l.c._), Gir. Cambr. (_De Instr. Princ._, dist.
iii. c. 5), Gerv. Cant. (i. 406) and R. Diceto (_l.c._) say merely
that the kings held a conference and took the Cross.
[267] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._
[268] _Gesta_, ii. 30.
[269] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[270] _Ib._
[271] On January 30; _Gesta_, ii. 33.
[272] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[273] R. Diceto, ii. 54, 55.
[274] _Gesta_, ii. 34.
[275] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._
[276] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[277] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 55, and _Gesta_, ii. 34.
[278] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._
[279] _Gesta_, _l.c._; cf. R. Diceto, _l.c._, Rigord (ed. Delaborde,
90) dates this invasion of Toulouse “inter Pentecosten et festum S.
Johannis,” _i. e._ between June 5 and 24; we shall, however, see that
it must have taken place some considerable time before June 16. In
my _Angevin Kings_ I adopted Rigord’s date, but I now recognize that
this was an error, and that the editors of Vic and Vaissète are right
in following William the Breton, who (ed. Delaborde, i. 187) places
the expedition “a short time after” (_modico post elapso tempore_) a
council which according to Rigord (_ib._, 84) was held at Paris in
March. Otherwise there would not have been time for all the captures,
negotiations, etc. “Toulouse” here evidently means the county of
Toulouse proper; the Quercy was already in Richard’s hands, annexed
by him to his ducal domains in 1186.
[280] Rigord, 90; cf. R. Diceto, _l.c._, _Gesta_, ii. 36, and Gerv.
Cant., ii. 432.
[281] _Gesta_, ii. 34, 35.
[282] Rigord, 90.
[283] _Gesta_, ii. 35, 36.
[284] R. Diceto, ii. 55.
[285] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.
[286] _Ib._
[287] _Gesta_, ii. 40. It is noticeable that the Angevin princes
are at this period always represented as describing their Toulousan
rival only by his ancestral title derived from the little county of
S. Gilles which was the cradle of his family, thus tacitly reserving
their own claim to be the rightful holders, not merely overlords, of
his greater possession, Toulouse.
[288] Montrichard, Montrésor, Coulangé; Rigord, 91, 92.
[289] Date from R. Diceto, _l.c._ Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 39, and Rigord,
_l.c._
[290] Gerv. Cant. i. 432, 433; cf. _Gesta_, ii. 40.
[291] Rigord, 92.
[292] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[293] _Ib._, ii. 45.
[294] “Ne nihil ageretur,” Gerv. Cant., i. 434.
[295] Gerv. Cant., i. 434.
[296] Rigord, _l.c._
[297] _Gesta_, ii. 45; cf. _ib._, 39, 40.
[298] R. Diceto, ii. 55; cf. W. Armor., _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (ed.
Delaborde), 188, 189.
[299] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 7389-405, 7610-40.
[300] _Gesta_, ii. 46. William the Breton in his _Philippis_, lib.
iii. ll. 410-624, gives a much longer account of this affair, with
a minute description of the personal struggle between Richard and
William des Barres, and no mention at all of the capture of William.
There can hardly be a doubt that the English prose writer’s brief
version is more trustworthy than the French poet-historiographer’s
lengthy elaboration. The latter has, however, one interesting touch;
in ll. 445-6 the poet makes William des Barres say of Richard:
“Rictus agnosco leonum Illius in clypeo.”
[301] _Gesta_, ii. 46.
[302] This is an inference from the fact that Philip is said to have
taken Palluau after the conference in October, _Gesta_, ii. 49.
[303] _Gesta_, ii. 49.
[304] _Ib._
[305] “Fo ordenatz per lor us parlamens ou foron ensems en la marcha
de Torena e de Beiriu, els reis Felips si fetz mains reclams d’en
Richart, dont amdui vengron a grans paraulas e a malas, si qu’en
Richartz lo desmenti el clamet vil recrezen, e sis desfieron e sis
partiron a mal.” _Razo_ of B. de Born’s _sirventes_ “Al dous nous,”
Thomas, 69, 70. Cf. Bertrand’s own words in the same _sirventes_, ll.
28-31: “Guerra sens fuoc e sens sanc De rei ni de gran poesta Cui
coms laidis ne desmenta Non es ges paraula genta.”
[306] _Gesta_, ii. 49.
[307] R. Diceto, ii. 57.
[308] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.
[309] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8116-39. This writer’s story is
here somewhat confused; he gives to the conference a date which
is certainly wrong—“a cluse Pasque, le mardi” (l. 8069), _i. e._,
Tuesday, April 18, 1189, instead of November 18, 1188.
[310] “Proposuit rex Francorum quod ea quae post crucem susceptam
ceperat Anglorum regi restitueret, et post, omnia manerent in eo
statu quo fuerunt ante crucem susceptam.... Comes Pictavorum penitus
contradixit; sibi quidem videbatur incongruum quod hac servata
conditione Cadurcum redderet et totum comitatum, et alia multa ...
pro feodo de Castro Radulfi et de castello de Hissoudun et Crazai,”
etc., R. Diceto, ii. 58. The two kings took the Cross in January
1188. The date of Richard’s annexation of the Quercy is not certain,
but it must be either 1186 or spring 1188. Philip took Châteauroux in
June 1188; but he had won Issoudun and Graçay in the spring of 1187,
therefore these two places would not be included in a restoration
of “ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat.” The only possible
explanation of the discrepancy seems to be that Ralph de Diceto
momentarily confused the conference at which Philip and Henry took
the Cross, at Gisors in January 1188, with their meeting at the same
place on March 10, 1186.
[311] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 58, Rigord, 92, 93, Gerv. Cant., i. 435,
and _Gesta_, ii. 50. The biographer of William the Marshal gives
(ll. 8089-175) a somewhat different account of the conference; he
says nothing of any request made there by Richard to his father,
but represents Philip as urging Henry to increase Richard’s actual
possessions by giving him Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and asserts
that before the conference Philip had won Richard over to him by
promising “qu’il li dorreit en demeine” those three counties, and
Richard had privately done him homage for them. If we accept this
story, we must regard the whole conduct not only of Philip but also
of Richard at Bonmoulins as a piece of utterly shameless acting,
performed with the deliberate purpose on Richard’s part of breaking
finally with his father; for no sane person could expect any other
answer than a refusal to such a request as this. The whole story of
the relations between Henry, Richard, and Philip is, however, only
touched upon in a very meagre and perfunctory way by the Marshal’s
biographer, whose subject it did not directly concern, and who
has almost certainly made one positive mistake with regard to the
Bonmoulins conference, in giving it a date which is five months too
late; I think therefore that the version of Rigord, Ralph de Diceto,
and Gervase of Canterbury is to be in every way preferred to his.
[312] R. Diceto, ii. 58.
[313] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.
[314] R. Diceto, _l.c._; _Gesta_, ii. 50. Cf. Rigord, 93.
[315] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[316] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 58.
[317] “Eissi commensa la meslee Qui unques ne fu desmelee,” _Hist. G.
le Mar._, ll. 8185-6.
[318] Gerv. Cant., i. 435, 436.
[319] R. Howden, ii. 355.
[320] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8189-254.
[321] Cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 436.
[322] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8285-9.
[323] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.
[324] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 10.
[325] _Gesta_, ii. 61. Probably they joined forces in Berry and
thence made an incursion into Touraine.
[326] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.
[327] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8311-30.
[328] R. Diceto, ii. 62.
[329] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 13.
[330] He visited Henry at Le Mans on Ascension Day, May 18; _Epp.
Cant._, 90.
[331] Reims, Bourges, Rouen and Canterbury; _Gesta_, ii. 61.
[332] _Ib._, 66, with date “adveniente Pentecoste.” Rog. Howden, ii.
362, says “in octavis Pentecostes,” which agrees better with Gerald’s
statement (_l.c._ c. 14) that the war began “about June 1.” Gervase
of Canterbury (i. 446) is of course doubly wrong in placing the
assembly “apud Cenomannum quinto Idus Junii.”
[333] _Gesta_, R. Howden, and Gerv. Cant., _ll.cc._
[334] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._
[335] _Gesta_, ii. 66.
[336] R. Howden, ii. 363.
[337] _Ib._, 362.
[338] _Ib._, 363.
[339] _Gesta_, ii. 67.
[340] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8349-50.
[341] _Ib._, 8357-74.
[342] “Rex Francorum et Comes ... intra paucos dies Feritatem
praedictam, Baalum, Bellummontem ... occupaverunt. A municipalibus
circumquaque _Comiti_ fit deditio castellorum.” R. Diceto, ii. 62,
63. Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 67, where Maletable—“Malum Stabulum”—is probably
a mistake for Bonnétable, about half way between La Ferté and
Beaumont. The Marshal’s biographer (ll. 8362-68), like the _Gesta_,
does not mention Richard, and names only three castles as falling
into Philip’s hands—La Ferté, Ballon, and “Montfort le Retrot, qui
gaires n’ert fort, E li fust tantost rendu, Unques ne fust defendu.”
He, however, certainly knew of Richard’s presence with the French
host, for we shall see that he expressly mentions him as engaged
in the pursuit from Le Mans on June 12. If Beaumont was given up
without resistance, its constable, not its owner the viscount, was
probably answerable for the surrender, since it was at another of
the viscount’s castles, La Frênaye, that Henry found shelter soon
afterwards.
[343] _Gesta_, ii. 67.
[344] Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8835-46 with ll. 9321-37, and the
brief summary of Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25:
“Cessante vero demum persequentium instantia per Comitis Pictaviensis
casum, equum ejusdem militari lancea perfosso.”
[345] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8847-64.
[346] _Gesta_, ii. 68, 69.
[347] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.
[348] Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 69, Gir. Cambr., _l.c._, W. Armor., _Gesta
Phil. Aug._, 190, and _Philippis_, lib. iii. ll. 735-8 (the poet
gives the date of the meeting by implication in l. 748), and Stubbs’s
preface to R. Howden, ii. lxvii, note 2.
[349] _Gesta_, ii. 70, 71.
[350] _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 8957.
[351] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 26.
[352] _Ib._, 25; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9068-78.
[353] _Gesta_, ii. 69.
[354] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9245-8.
[355] The statement in _Gesta Ricardi_ (_Gesta Hen. et Ric._, ii.),
71, that he met the funeral procession on the way and accompanied it
“flens et ejulans” is at variance with a better authority for the
details of the burial—the _Hist. G. le Mar._—and is improbable for
geographical reasons.
[356] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9294-8.
[357] Disfigured, “sicut perhibent qui presentes fuerunt et
viderunt,” by a bleeding from the nostrils which began as soon as
Richard entered the church and ceased only when he went out again;
Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28.
[358] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9299-303.
[359] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28.
[360] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9304-41.
[361] Gilbert Pipard, a well-known officer of the Exchequer; _Hist.
G. le Mar._, ll. 9347-51.
[362] The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9350-1, says Richard bade the
envoys themselves “Si pernez garde de ma terre E de trestot mon autre
afaire”; but the English chroniclers know nothing of this, and one
of them distinctly asserts that Eleanor was made regent: “Alienor
regina ... statuendi quae vellet in regno potestatem accepit a
filio. Datum siquidem est in mandatis regni principibus et quasi sub
edicto generali statutum ut ad reginae nutum omnia disponerentur.”
R. Diceto, ii. 66. (This passage is immediately followed by the one
about “aquila rupti fœderis.”) Cf. _Gesta_, 74.
[363] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9361-408. Châteauroux, it will be
remembered, had been in Philip’s hands since June 1187.
[364] His very identity is a puzzle; under Henry II we read of
Stephen de Matha, Stephen de Marzay, Stephen of Turnham, and Stephen
“de Turonis,” all bearing the title of “Seneschal of Anjou,” and it
is doubtful whether or not all these names represent the same man. In
the passage now before us the _Gesta_ (71) call him “de Turonis,” but
it is clear from other evidence that this means Turnham, not Tours.
The _Gesta_ continue (71, 72): “Et uxorem filii praedicti Stephani
propter ignobilitatem mariti ab ipso separari fecit [rex] et alii
marito dari; minans se hujusmodi nobilium puellarum vel viduarum cum
ignobilibus contubernia sua auctoritate secundum leges separare.” Is
it possible that Stephen’s crime consisted in having contrived or
connived at a ceremony of marriage, without licence from the Crown,
between his son and some royal ward who had been committed to his
custody? Such a marriage, if merely formal and if the parties were
under age, might be voidable by a sentence of the king. According to
R. Devizes, 6, 7 (ed. Stevenson), Richard brought Stephen over with
him, in chains, to England, and kept him in prison at Winchester till
he redeemed himself by a heavy fine. This fine may have been either
for the misdemeanour which I have suggested, or in remission of a vow
of Crusade—which vow, however, Stephen fulfilled after all.
[365] _Gesta_, 72.
[366] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.
[367] R. Diceto, ii. 66, 67.
[368] _Gesta_, 73; R. Diceto, ii. 67.
[369] Rigord, 97.
[370] Date from _Gesta_, 73, 74; place from R. Howden, iii. 4.
[371] _Gesta_, 74.
[372] _Ib._; R. Howden, iii. 4; Gerv. Cant., i. 450, 451 (who seems
to have got confused between Auvergne and Berry); and Rigord, 97,
whose statement is of course conclusive as to the final terms so far
as the lands are concerned.
[373] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.
[374] _Ib._, 450.
[375] _Ib._, 457; _Gesta_, 75, with a self-contradictory date.
[376] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._, says Southampton; the _Gesta_, _l.c._, say
Portsmouth.
[377] Gerv. Cant., i. 453, 454, 457; R. Diceto, ii. 67; cf. _Gesta_,
76. The first gives date August 14, the second August 15.
[378] _Gesta_, 75.
[379] _Gesta_, 74, 75.
[380] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.
[381] _Gesta_, 75-6.
[382] Gerv. Cant., i. 457.
[383] The _Itin. Ric. Reg._, 142, says “die S. Ægidii receptus est
cum processione apud Westmonasterium, et die tertia sequenti ...
unctus est in regem.” Gervase, i. 457, dates the arrival in London
September 2. The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9568-9, says, “A mult riche
procession Fu receuz dedenz Seint Pol,” without any date.
[384] _Itin._, 142; Gerv. Cant., i. 457; R. Diceto, ii. 68; _Gesta_,
78, 79.
[385] Ralph de Diceto, who as dean of S. Paul’s handed the ampulla to
the Primate, the bishop of London, to whom this duty belonged, being
absent through illness. R. Diceto, ii. 69.
[386] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 68, _Gesta_, 81, 82, and R. Howden, iii. 10.
[387] _Gesta_, 82; R. Howden, iii. 10, 11.
[388] _Estoire de la Croisade_, ll. 205, 206; the writer implies that
he was there.
[389] _Gesta_, 83.
[390] _Gesta_, 83; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.
[391] W. Newb., _l.c._
[392] _Ib._
[393] _Gesta_, 84.
[394] W. Newb., _l.c._
[395] _Gesta_, 84.
[396] So at least we should gather from the treasurer’s apparent
inability to find any money for King Henry’s funeral; _Hist. G. le
Mar._, ll. 9173-200. Of course we must remember that Richard himself
had emptied that treasury two years before. This again implies that
he was at that time short of money in Aquitaine, and therefore not
likely to have since then accumulated anything in the way of a
reserve fund there.
[397] _Gesta_, 76, 77; R. Howden, iii. 8.
[398] “Nongenta millia librarum,” _Gesta_, 77; “Thesaurus ... magnus
valde, excedens numerum et valentiam centum millia marcarum” (=
£66,666 13_s._ 4_d._), R. Howden, _l.c._ There can be little doubt
that the _Gesta’s_ figure is, as Dr. Stubbs suggested it might be,
an error for “nonaginta.” We know that the royal revenue for the
financial year which ended three weeks after Richard’s coronation
amounted to somewhat less than fifty thousand pounds (£48,781;
Stubbs, preface to _Gesta_, ii. xcix).
[399] R. Howden, iii. 17.
[400] _Gesta_, 90.
[401] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.
[402] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 10.
[403] _Gesta_, 90, 91.
[404] R. Howden, iii. 13.
[405] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; cf. R. Devizes, 10.
[406] R. Howden, ii. 302.
[407] R. Devizes, 7.
[408] _Gesta_, 87; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4. Elsewhere the former
writer includes Ranulf among the officers whom he represents as
compulsorily deposed and held to ransom: “Eodem mense Ricardus Rex
deposuit a balliis suis Ranulfum de Glanvilla justiciarium Angliae et
fere omnes vicecomites,” etc. (_Gesta_, 90); but his own statement in
p. 87, confirmed by William of Newburgh, suffices to contradict this
so far as Glanville is concerned.
[409] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4.
[410] _Epp. Cantuar._, 329.
[411] _Gesta_, 87, 90, 91; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden,
iii. xxviii, note 3.
[412] Gir. Cambr., _Vita Galfr._, lib. i. c. 6 (_Opera_, iv. 374).
[413] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 9.
[414] _Gesta_, 72; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxiv,
note 1.
[415] _Gesta_, 78.
[416] See _John Lackland_, 26-8, and the references there given in
footnotes.
[417] The gross total of the ferms and other profits of the six
counties for the year ending Michaelmas 1189 was £4,081 9_s._ 8_d._;
Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, iii. xxv, note 4. The greater part of
this sum was derived from the miscellaneous profits, which were
liable to fluctuation. The £500-£600 worth of other lands given to
John would no doubt insure that this fluctuation should not reduce
John’s total annual income from his English possessions (irrespective
of his Gloucester earldom and honour) below £4000. Stubbs (_l.c._,
xxiv, note 2) thought that “this promise of £4000 a year in land was
not regarded as fulfilled by the bestowal of the counties.... We
find that in 1195 when John had been removed from the government of
the counties, his income from the Exchequer was £8000 (Howden, iii.
286), but ... in Angevin money and only equal to £2000 sterling.”
Howden’s words in the place here cited are “Eodem anno Ricardus rex
Angliae remisit Johanni fratri suo omnem iram et malivolentiam suam,
et reddidit ei comitatum de Moretonia et honorem de Eia, et comitatum
Glocestriae, cum omni integritate eorum, exceptis castellis; et pro
omnibus aliis comitatibus et terris suis dedit ei rex per annum
octo millia librarum Andegavensis monetae.” To me these words seem
to imply nothing definite as to the relative value of the counties
and other lands of which John had been deprived and of the money
compensation given to him in their stead in 1195. Nor does Bishop
Stubbs’s further remark, “However, it is clear that whilst he was
in charge of the counties he was receiving a large sum from the
Exchequer; R. Devizes, 26,” seem to me borne out by the passage to
which he here gives a reference, and which runs thus: “Colloquium
primum inter comitem de Moretonio, fratrem regis, et cancellarium,
de custodiis quorumdam castellorum et de pecunia comiti a fratre de
scaccario concessa, apud Wintoniam ad Laetare Hierusalem” (_i. e._,
March 4, 1191).
[418] Or Geddington; R. Diceto, ii. 69. Geddington was a royal manor;
the king lodged in his own house there, but the council meetings were
held in Pipewell Abbey, which stood within the boundaries of the
manor. _Monasticon_, v. 431.
[419] Stubbs, note to _Gesta_, 97.
[420] _Ann. Cambr._, 57.
[421] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[422] _Ib._, 92, 93; R. Howden, iii. 20. Richard was in London
November 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 (Stubbs, _Gesta_, 97, note 3).
According to the _Gesta_, the person who swore for Richard was
William de Mandeville; according to R. Howden, William the Marshal.
If the former be right the date must be before November 14, for on
that day William de Mandeville died; R. Diceto, ii. 73.
[423] _Itin._, 145.
[424] _Ib._; Gerv. Cant., i. 474. The precise dates are November 26
to December 5; Stubbs, notes to _Gesta_, 97, 98.
[425] _Gesta_, 97, 99.
[426] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 72, and Gerv. Cant., i. 474.
[427] R. Diceto, ii. 72, 73; cf. _Gesta_, 99.
[428] Chron. Mailros, a. 1157.
[429] _Gesta Hen._, i. 96, 98.
[430] _Ib._ 351; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.
[431] R. Howden, ii. 338, 339.
[432] _Gesta Hen._, ii. 44.
[433] £6,666 13_s._ 4_d._, W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; R. Diceto, ii.
72. The _Gesta_, 98, make the sum 10,000 marks sterling, _i. e._,
£6,600. The charter in which Richard’s concessions to William are
embodied contains no mention of money.
[434] _Fœdera_, I. i. 50. Date, December 5, 1189.
[435] “Pactiones quas ... Henricus rex per novas cartas et per
captionem suam” (_i. e._, Willelmi) “extorsit.”
[436] William had been captured, with some sixty of his men, when
the bulk of the force with which he was besieging Alnwick was out of
reach, by a body of several hundred English knights who had ridden to
the place through a thick mist which prevented them from seeing where
they were and the Scots from discovering their approach till a sudden
clearing of the air surprised both parties alike by revealing their
presence to each other, and the little band of Scots, though they
made a splendid fight, were easily surrounded. W. Newb., lib. ii. c.
33; Jordan Fantosme, ll. 1731-1839.
[437] This is the date of Richard’s charter as printed from an
original copy in _Fœdera_, I. i. 50. “He,” says Richard, “became our
liegeman for all the lands for which his ancestors were liegemen of
our ancestors, and he swore fealty to us and our heirs.” See also
_Gesta_, 104.
[438] _Gesta_, 100.
[439] R. Diceto, ii. 73, makes the date December 14 and the
landing-place Gravelines; the _Gesta_ writer, 101, says “xi^o die
Decembris, in vigilia S. Luciae,” which is self-contradictory, S.
Lucy’s day being December 13. For “in vigilia S. Luciae” Roger of
Howden (iii. 28) substitutes “feria secunda,” which would be right
for December 11, 1189. Both these latter writers say that Richard
landed at Calais, and that the Count of Flanders met him on his
landing and escorted him “cum gaudio” into Normandy.
[440] At Bures, according to _Gesta_, 104; at Lions, according to
_Itin._, 145.
[441] _Est. de la Guerre Ste._, ll. 247-50.
[442] The proclamation inserted by R. Diceto, ii. 73, 74, is dated
Nonancourt, December 30; the _Gesta_, 104, places the meeting at the
Ford of S. Rémi. This was the usual place for conferences, and is
close to Nonancourt.
[443] The _Gesta_, 105, and R. Diceto, ii. 74, say that S. John
Baptist’s day was the date fixed at the second conference, which was
held on January 13 (_Gesta_, _l.c._). R. Diceto, however, elsewhere
(ii. 77) gives Midsummer as the date fixed at the third conference,
which he says took place on the day on which the Queen of France
died, or was buried; it is not clear which he means. She died on
March 15; Rigord, 97. This is clearly the conference at which the
_Estoire_, ll. 259-86, and _Itin._ 146, tell us the kings received
the news of her death (she died unexpectedly, in childbirth), and
agreed to set out each from his own dominions on S. John Baptist’s
day and meet at Vézelay for the final start together on the octave.
The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ place this conference “at Dreux.”
Richard was at Nonancourt on March 14 (_Fœdera_, I. i. 51); the Gué
St. Rémi is midway between these two towns and was no doubt the real
meeting-place.
[444] _Gallia Christ._, i. 988.
[445] Richard, _Comtes._, ii. 263.
[446] R. Diceto, ii. 73. R. Coggeshall, 26, says December 12, but
there are several indications that Mandeville was dead before Richard
left England.
[447] _Gesta_, 101. Roger of Howden, iii. 28, says: “Hugo Dunelmensis
et Willelmus Eliensis Episcopi remanserunt in Anglia summi
justiciarii”; but the _Gesta_ and R. Devizes (11) distinctly imply
that at this time William of Ely, though practically viceroy, was
not titularly chief justiciar. He was, however, added to the number
of assistant justiciars (_Gesta_, _l.c._), and probably this is what
Roger really means.
[448] _Gesta_, 105, 106. R. Howden, iii. 32.
[449] _Gesta_, 106.
[450] After March 27; see _Fœdera_, I. i. 51.
[451] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[452] _Ib._
[453] R. Howden, iii. 8.
[454] There is one rather curious-looking case of a ship which the
king seems to have originally bought for £100, given to the Knights
of the Hospital (in England), and bought back from them for £9.
Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 13. But I do not feel quite sure of
the meaning of the passage.
[455] See extract from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. II in Archer, _Crusade of
Richard I_, 11-13. A captain’s pay was double that of a common
sailor; _ib._ The total of ships enumerated in this passage,
exclusive of smacks, whose number is not given, is forty-seven. The
total of the fleet when it set out was 107 or 108 “besides some
others which followed”: _Est._, ll. 311-13, _Itin._ 47.
[456] _Gesta_, 110, 111; R. Howden, iii. 36, 37. These ordinances are
dated “apud Chinonem.” As in both the writers who record them they
are inserted after some events which took place in England in June,
and as Richard is known, from several sources, to have been at Chinon
on June 20, this is the date usually assigned for their issue. But
it cannot be correct; for both our authorities say that the fleet
sailed “statim post Pascha” (March 25), and that a part of it entered
the Bay of Biscay on Ascension day (May 6); _Gesta_, 116; R. Howden,
iii. 42. These ordinances, and the sailing order issued at the same
time with them, must therefore have been issued before Easter. We
have seen that Richard met Philip on the Norman border on March 15,
the Thursday before Palm Sunday; after that, we have no notice of his
whereabouts till April 17, when he was at Chinon (Richard, _Comtes_,
ii. 263, 264). In all likelihood he had been there for a month,
almost ever since his meeting with Philip.
[457] _Gesta_, 111, 116. The _Itin._, 147, and _Est._, ll. 307-10,
represent this order for immediate departure as issued much later
still, from Tours, just before the king himself set out thence for
Vézelay, _i. e._, at the end of June; but as has been shown in the
preceding note, this is quite incompatible with the date at which the
fleet actually sailed.
[458] Endowment charter, dated Luçon, May 5 (1190); witnesses, Peter
Bertin, seneschal of Poitou (appointed not before February 21, 1190,
Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, 265), Stephen de Marzay, Brother Miles
the duke’s almoner, Ralf FitzGeoffrey his chamberlain, and John of
Alençon his vice-chancellor, who sealed the deed. Richard, _Comtes_,
ii. 265; from Tardif, _Archives du Poitou_ (Trésor des Chartes), xi.
408.
[459] _Gesta_, 99. The earlier queen referred to is there called
Matilda, but as the writer calls Stephen’s wife “Alicia,” it is
possible that he has reversed the names and that the other queen whom
he intended to mention was not Maud of Scotland but Henry’s second
wife, Adeliza of Louvain.
[460] “Gourfaille, canton de Pissotte, Vendée,” Richard, _Comtes_,
_l.c._, from _Archives du Poitou_, i. 120.
[461] _Gall. Christ._, ii. instr. 388. On the 7th he was at S.
Jean d’Angély; Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 266, from _Arch. Hist. de
Saintonge_, xxviii. 140.
[462] June 6; letter in R. Diceto, ii. 83.
[463] R. Howden, iii. 35. Roger calls this man William of “Chisi”;
Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, says “Chis, Hautes Pyrénées,” and seems
to date this expedition earlier, between February 21 and April 17;
but he gives no reason for so doing, and it seems therefore better to
accept the sequence of events given by Roger, with which Richard’s
presence at Bayonne on June 6 fits in very well.
[464] Stapleton, _Norm. Exch. Rolls_, i. cxlv.
[465] R. Devizes, 15.
[466] R. Howden, iii. 36—miscalling the archbishop “William” as usual.
[467] _Ib._, 37. There is documentary evidence of Richard’s presence
at Tours on June 27, 1190; Teulet, _Layettes_, i. 158. Probably he
was there several days earlier, as otherwise Philip would hardly have
had time to visit him there and then go to Paris before setting out
for Vézelay.
[468] _Est._, ll. 324-34.
[469] On June 27 Richard went from Tours to Montrichard (_Fœdera_, I.
i. 48) by way of Azay (on the Cher, close to Tours); _Itin._, 149.
In the next four days he passed through Selles (on the Cher) and La
Chapelle [d’Anguillon, in Berry] to Donzy, in the Nivernais (_Itin._,
_l.c._), where he was on July 1 (_Fœdera_, _l.c._). He may have gone
from Donzy to Vézelay on that day. He was certainly at Vézelay on
July 3 (_Monast._ VI. i. 327). Rigord (i. 99) says: “Feria quarta
post octavas S. Johannis Baptistae” [= Wednesday, July 4] “cum rege
Anglorum Ricardo apud Vizeliacum venit [rex Francorum],” which looks
as if the kings had met on the way and arrived together; but if so,
Rigord’s date is, as we have just seen, at least a day too late. The
_Gesta Ric._ (111) say the two kings stayed at Vézelay two days,
and the _Itinerarium_ (151) enumerates seven places through which
they passed “distinctis dietis” from there to Lyons (M. Gaston Paris
accepts this passage in the _Itinerarium_ as authentic, believing
it to be derived “from an official source”). This would mean their
leaving Vézelay on July 6 and reaching Lyons on the 13th; but from
certain words in the _Gesta_ it seems possible, and I think even
probable, that the true dates are the 3rd and the 10th. The whole
sentence in the _Gesta_ runs thus: “Ibi [sc. apud Vizeliacum] moram
fecerunt [reges] per duos dies _in octavis S. Iohannis Baptistae_.”
Strictly interpreted, this should mean “within the octave”; it might
mean “beginning on the octave,” _i. e._, July 1-3; but it cannot
correctly represent July 4-6. Either it is a blunder, or Rigord is
wrong in dating Philip’s arrival on the 4th. I venture to think
the latter alternative the likelier of the two, as the English
chroniclers appear to have followed their sovereign’s travels with
great care, while Rigord is certainly far from being a specially
accurate chronologist.
[470] _Est._, ll. 365-75; _Itin._, 150.
[471] _Gesta_, 111.
[472] _Est._, ll. 377-8.
[473] The stages are given in _Itin._ 151. See note 7 to p. 117 above.
[474] _Est._, ll. 413-28; _Itin._, _l.c._
[475] _Est._, ll. 429-36.
[476] It is said to have numbered 100,000; _Est._, l. 419, _Itin._,
_l.c._
[477] _Gesta_, 112; _Est._, ll. 449-65; _Itin._, 152.
[478] _Est._, ll. 466-90. “Le Rogne, l’eve crestee,” l. 414.
[479] _Ib._, ll. 491-7.
[480] The two kings having agreed to separate their forces because
they found them too numerous to travel in one body; _Gesta_, 112.
[481] _Itin._, 152.
[482] _Ib._, _Est._, ll. 499-510.
[483] _Itin._, _l.c._
[484] We get this date from the _Gesta_, 112, where it is said that
Richard stayed at Marseille eight days and left on August 7. The
author of the _Itinerarium_ enumerates (153) fifteen places which he
says “_we_ went through” (_transivimus_) from Lyons to Marseille;
but he does not (as in his account of the journey from Vézelay to
Lyons) specify how many days’ travelling these stages represent;
and moreover, he is evidently here not describing Richard’s journey
at all, for he ends “apud Marsiliam, ubi moram fecimus per tres
hebdomadas; postea mare intravimus, scilicet die proxima post
festum Assumptionis Beatae Mariae,” _i. e._, August 16; that is, he
represents himself as having reached Marseille on July 26. Supposing
his narrative to be authentic, he must therefore have travelled from
Lyons to Marseille not with the king, but in advance of him. On the
other hand, if he was an impostor and not a Crusader at all, his
evidence on this point is of no account. In either case, however, it
is probable that the route he gives would occupy about a fortnight;
Richard may therefore have set out from Lyons on July 17 or 18.
[485] R. Howden, iii. 51.
[486] _Ib._, 42.
[487] _Epp. Cantuar._, 328.
[488] _Gesta_, 15.
[489] The date of the death, November 1189, is given in _Gesta_, 101,
102.
[490] “Mare nauseans,” R. Devizes, 16.
[491] _Ib._
[492] _Gesta_, 112. R. Diceto, ii. 84, says “in vigilia S.
Laurentii,” _i. e._, August 9; but in the _Gesta_ the date is the
first of a whole series evidently derived from an official record of
some kind, so it seems best to follow this authority.
[493] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[494] _Gesta_, 112-14.
[495] R. Diceto, ii. 84.
[496] _Gesta_, 114, 115.
[497] _Ib._, 124.
[498] _Gesta_, 115-22. 124; R. Howden, iii. 42-50. 53, 54.
[499] _Gesta_, 124; R. Diceto, ii. 84.
[500] Rigord, 106.
[501] Placed at his disposal by the new king of Sicily, Tancred;
_Gesta_, _l.c._
[502] _Est._, ll. 573-80; _Itin._, 156.
[503] _Gesta_, 124, 125.
[504] _Est._, ll. 588-93.
[505] _Gesta_, 126; R. Howden, iii, 55. These and R. Diceto, ii. 84,
give the date, September 23.
[506] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[507] _Est._, ll. 594-7.
[508] _Gesta_ and R. Howden, _ll.cc._
[509] The settlement is given at length in _Gesta_, i. 169, 170.
[510] Cf. _Gesta_, 132, 133, and R. Devizes, 19. According to the
former authority the cups and dishes were of gold, according to the
latter of silver.
[511] R. Devizes, 18.
[512] _Gesta_, 132.
[513] R. Devizes, 19. The _terrino_ was a small gold coin weighing
twenty grains.
[514] _Gesta_, 126; date confirmed by R. Diceto, ii. 85.
[515] _Est._, ll. 549-58.
[516] _Est._, ll. 615-19.
[517] R. Devizes, 18.
[518] Cf. R. Devizes, 20, _Est._, ll. 547-58, 607-24, and _Gesta_,
138, 139.
[519] Cf. R. Devizes, 19, R. Diceto, ii. 85, _Gesta_, 127, and R.
Howden, iii.
[520] It seems to have been really another beacon-tower or pharos,
placed on the island—like the tower on the Sicilian mainland opposite
Scylla, where Richard had first landed—to give warning of the
proximity of Charybdis; see _Gesta_, 158.
[521] _Gesta_, 127; R. Devizes, 19.
[522] Cf. _Gesta_, _l.c._, and _Est._, ll. 627-44; the date is from
the former. R. Devizes, 22, seems to make it October 2, but his whole
account of the matter is fantastic, while that of the _Gesta_ is in
close accord with the eye-witness Ambrose, the poet of the _Estoire_.
[523] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[524] _Ib._, 138; see Archer’s note on them, _Crusade of Richard I_,
31.
[525] _Gesta_, 128; R. Devizes, 22, 23; _Est._, ll. 649-53.
[526] _Est._, ll. 654-67.
[527] _Gesta_, 128; for Hugh the Brown cf. R. Diceto, ii. 85, _Est._,
ll. 717-20, _Itin._ 161, and R. Devizes, 23.
[528] _Est._, ll. 683-5.
[529] _Ib._, ll. 721-36.
[530] _Ib._, ll. 689-701, 779-84.
[531] _Gesta_, 129.
[532] “Li reis fud un des premerains Qui osast entrer en la vile;
Puis i entrerent bien dis mile,” Est., ll. 801-4. The _Itinerarium_,
163, says: “Primus civitatem intravit ipse dux et praevius,” and
describes the entrance as effected “per posternam quandam quam rex
Anglorum, secunda die adventus sui ad cautelam futurorum circuiens
cum duobus sociis, quasi neglectam a civibus perpenderat” (162,
163). This is quite in accord with the character of Richard, who
as we shall see later was in the habit of doing his own scouting;
and the attack could hardly have been so successful unless some
preparations for it had been made beforehand. Still, as the writer
of the _Itinerarium_ does not in this part of his work speak as
an eye-witness, and the one writer who does so speak—Ambrose—does
not give this detail, I prefer to place it only in a footnote.
Richard of Devizes, 23, says the town gates were broken down “admoto
ariete dicto citius.” But he was certainly not there, and his whole
account of the doings at Messina is too full of long speeches to be
altogether trustworthy.
[533] “Plus tost eurent il pris Meschines C’uns prestres n’ad dit ses
matines,” _Est._, ll. 809, 810. Cf. _Itin._, 163.
[534] R. Devizes, 24.
[535] _Est._, ll. 811-18.
[536] _Ib._, ll. 823-61; R. Howden, iii. 58. Howden’s phrase “rex
Angliae signa sua deposuit” probably means only that Richard’s
banners were placed beneath Philip’s in token of the feudal relation
between the kings.
[537] _Est._, ll. 844-8.
[538] _Ib._, ll. 827-30.
[539] _Itin._, 166.
[540] _Gesta_, 129.
[541] _Ib._, 132.
[542] _Est._, ll. 867-86; _Itin._, 165, 166.
[543] _Est._, ll. 913-32; cf. _Itin._, 167.
[544] _Gesta_, 133.
[545] _Ib._, 138.
[546] _Est._, ll. 937, 938.
[547] _Gesta_, _l.c._; R. Devizes, 25; _Est._, ll. 939, 940.
[548] “Que ja a lui [_i. e._ Tancred] ne plaideroit, E que il se
porchaceroit.” _Est._, ll. 941-50.
[549] _Est._, ll. 951-73.
[550] _Ib._, ll. 891-5.
[551] Rigord, 106.
[552] _Est._, ll. 977-1000; _Gesta_, 133-6; _Itin._, 169; R. Diceto,
ii. 85; R. Devizes, 24, 25.
[553] Letter of Richard in _Gesta_, 133.
[554] Letters of Richard to Tancred and to the Pope, in _Gesta_,
133-8.
[555] _Gesta_, 136.
[556] Richard in both his letters cited above acknowledges the
receipt of 20,000 ounces of gold as the dowry of Arthur’s betrothed.
We shall see that the other sum, though the letters do not mention
it, was paid also.
[557] _Est._, ll. 1049-52; _Itin._, 169, 170. Rigord (106), on the
other hand, declares it was “thanks to King Philip’s intervention and
efforts” that Tancred and Richard were reconciled—which is perhaps
true in a sense, but not the sense in which Philip’s panegyrist meant
it—and complains that of the forty thousand ounces of gold Philip
“had only the third part, when he ought to have had half.”
[558] _Gesta_, 129-32.
[559] _Est._, ll. 1053-74; _Itin._, 171, 172. In the printed edition
of the _Estoire_, line 1062 reads thus: “Richarz qui n’est aver
ne chinches.” If _est_ be really the reading of the MS., it of
course places beyond all doubt the correctness of M. Gaston Paris’s
assertion that the poet “a certainement écrit avant la mort de
Richard” (introd., p. 1.). But M. Paris does not cite this line in
support of his assertion, and in his modern French version of the
poem he renders the line “Richard, qui _n’était_ pas chiche ni avare”
(p. 347). We are therefore at present left in doubt whether _n’est_
be not here a misprint for _n’ert_.
[560] _Gesta_, 157.
[561] _Ib._, 146, 147.
[562] _Est._, ll. 1080-1108; cf. _Gesta_, 150.
[563] _Gesta_, 150, 151.
[564] See above, p. 79.
[565] _Gesta_, 155-7.
[566] Rigord, 107.
[567] _Est._, ll. 1145-8.
[568] _Gesta_, 157; they are there said to have gone to Brindisi.
February 27 that year was Ash Wednesday; possibly Richard had hoped
they would arrive in time for the marriage to take place before Lent.
[569] Rigord, 107.
[570] So says _Itin._, 170, 171; in the _Gesta_, 158, he is said to
have gone “per consilium regis Franciae,” which from the sequel does
not seem very likely.
[571] _Gesta_, 158, 159.
[572] _Ib._, 159, 160.
[573] Charter of Philip, in _Fœdera_, I. i. 54, dated “March 1190,”
the French year beginning on Lady day.
[574] “Tertio kalendas Aprilis, sabbato,” _Gesta_, 161; “die Sabbati
post Annunciationem B. Mariae,” _Itin._, 175; _i. e._, Saturday,
March 30. In p. 177, however, the author of the _Itinerarium_ says
Richard sailed on the seventeenth day after Philip’s departure;
which, as all authorities (this same writer included, _l.c._) date
Richard’s departure from Messina on the Wednesday before Easter, _i.
e._, April 10, ought to mean that Philip sailed on Lady day itself.
R. Diceto, ii. 91, makes him sail “quarto kalendas Aprilis,” _i. e._,
March 29; or, according to another MS., “tertio kalendas Aprilis,”
agreeing with _Gesta_. This latter authority says (161) that Philip
reached Acre on the twenty-second day of his voyage, viz. Saturday in
Easter week, _i. e._, April 20. Rigord, 108, dates his arrival Easter
Even (April 13).
[575] _Gesta_, 157.
[576] Cf. _ib._, 161, and _Est._, ll. 1135-40, 1153-9.
[577] _Gesta_, 162; _Est._, ll. 1186-90; _Itin._, 177; R. Diceto, ii.
91.
[578] One hundred “naves” and 14 “buccae,” R. Devizes, 17. This
writer, it must be remembered, supposed the king to have joined his
fleet at Marseille and coasted along with it thence to Messina,
picking up more ships as he went; but as we have seen, this is an
error.
[579] R. Diceto, ii. 86, makes it 219, viz. 156 “naves,” 24 “buccae,”
and 39 “galeae”; the _Gesta_, 162, make it 203, being 150 “magnae
naves” and 53 “galeae”; R. Devizes, 46, reckons the fleet at its
leaving Messina as comprising 180 “naves,” “buccae,” and “dromundi”
(thus tallying with R. Diceto), besides the “galeae” of which he does
not state the number.
[580] Cf. the description of twelfth century _galeae_ in W. Tyr.,
lib. xiv. c. 20, with that in _Itin._, 80.
[581] R. Devizes, 17.
[582] R. Devizes, 46.
[583] _Est._, ll. 1179-85, 1200; _Itin._, 176, 177.
[584] “Devant siglot li reis meismes,” _Est._, l. 1259.
[585] _Itin._, 177.
[586] “Prés de Vïaires,” _Est._, l. 1216; probably, as M. Gaston
Paris says, Cape Spartivento, the eastern point of Calabria.
[587] _Est._, ll. 1202-28.
[588] R. Devizes, 46.
[589] _Itin._, 178.
[590] _Est._, ll. 1233-60.
[591] _Ib._, ll. 1261-7.
[592] _Ib._, ll. 1268-1312.
[593] _Ib._, ll. 1377-1400.
[594] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 105, _Est._, ll. 1401, 1402, and _Itin._,
184, which alone gives the date.
[595] R. Devizes, 47.
[596] _Itin._, 184-7; cf. _Est._, ll. 1403-25.
[597] _Itin._, 187, 188.
[598] _Est._, ll. 1315-34, 1349-51.
[599] _Ib._, ll. 1449-72. Cf. _Itin._, 189. We need not trouble
ourselves about the speeches in _Gesta_, 163, and R. Howden, ii. 106.
[600] _Est._, ll. 1479-95; _Itin._, 189. Cf. R. Howden, iii. 107.
[601] R. Devizes, 47.
[602] “Estions mis es bargettes Qui esteient mult petitettes” _Est._,
ll. 1505, 1506.
[603] _Est._, ll. 1473-4, 1495-1564; _Itin._, 180-91.
[604] _Itin._, 191.
[605] _Est._, ll. 1565-1700; cf. _Itin._, 192-4, _Gesta_, 163, 164,
and R. Howden, iii. 107, 108.
[606] _Est._, ll. 1335-45. Philip reached Acre April 13 according to
Rigord, 108; Saturday in Easter week, April 20, according to _Gesta_,
161.
[607] “Rex ad omnia promptissimus, ne dicam praesumptuosissimus,”
_Itin._, 195.
[608] _Ib._
[609] _Est._, ll. 1701-45; _Itin._, 195, 196.
[610] _Est._, ll. 1749-53, and _Itin._, 196, say Richard had now
forty galleys, including the five Cypriotes.
[611] _Est._, ll. 1761-75, 1791-97; cf. _Itin._, 196, 197.
[612] _Itin._, 197, 198.
[613] _Est._, ll. 1777-90, 1813-18.
[614] Called “Ebetines” by Ambrose, _Est._, l. 1967.
[615] The later Deudamours, now Audimo, in the interior.
[616] See _Gestes des Chiprois_, 514.
[617] _Est._, ll. 1833-2056; cf. _Itin._, 199-203, _Gesta_, 166, and
R. Howden, iii. 109-11.
[618] The “fifteen days” come from _Est._, ll. 2061-4, and _Itin._,
203. The _Gesta_, 167, and R. Howden, iii. 110, lengthen the
campaign, placing Richard’s marriage, May 12, in the middle of it
instead of before its beginning. They date Isaac’s surrender Whitsun
Eve, June 1; the _Itin._, 203, makes it Friday, May 31.
[619] _Est._, ll. 2065-82.
[620] See the complaints of a contemporary Cypriote (Greek) writer,
in _Itin._, introd. clxxxvi.
[621] _Gesta_, 168; cf. R. Howden, iii. 111, 112.
[622] _Est._, ll. 2067-8.
[623] _Gesta_, 167.
[624] _Est._, ll. 2101-5.
[625] _Ib._, ll. 2087, 2088; _Itin._, 204.
[626] _Est._, ll. 2089-92; _Itin._, _l.c._
[627] _Gesta_, 168; R. Howden, iii. 112. The latter absurdly says
the queens with the Maid of Cyprus and the greater part of the fleet
reached Acre on the day of Isaac’s submission, _i. e._, June 1. It is
quite clear that the whole fleet, with king, queens, and all, sailed
on June 5.
[628] R. Diceto, ii. 93.
[629] _Est._, ll. 2129-41; cf. _Itin._, 208.
[630] R. Devizes, 49.
[631] _Est._, ll. 2140-60.
[632] “Come si ço fust ovre de fee,” _Est._, l. 2162.
[633] _Est._, ll. 2185-275; cf. _Itin._, 205-9, and the brief
accounts in _Gesta_, 168, 169, R. Howden, iii. 112, and R. Diceto,
ii. 93, 94. R. Devizes, 94, absurdly says Richard had 1300 men
drowned, “reservando ducentos.”
[634] _Est._, ll. 2142-9; _Itin._, 205; R. Diceto, ii. 93; Bohadin
(_Recueil Hist. Croisades, Hist. Orientaux_, iii.), 220, 221.
[635] Bohadin, _l.c._
[636] _Est._, ll. 2165-84; _Itin._, 206. The brief accounts in
_Gesta_ and R. Howden say nothing of the serpents; R. Diceto, _l.c._,
mentions among the contents of the ship “serpentium ignitorum plena
vasa plurima”; I have thought it right to adopt the interpretation of
the “serpents” which these words imply, although a curious question
seems to be suggested by comparing the story with an account in the
_Morning Post_ of August 14, 1914, of a captured German liner whose
cargo is there said to have included “about sixty alligators and
reptiles.”
[637] Bohadin, 221.
[638] _Est._, ll. 2194-5.
[639] Bohadin, 221.
[640] _Est._, ll. 2305-8.