camped outside the city, and place the affair of the dromond on the
next day, June 7. But the _Estoire_ distinctly locates the meeting
with the dromond between Beyrout and Sidon. R. Diceto, ii. 94, dates
it June 6, which is doubtless correct. Bohadin’s date, June 11 (p.
220), is impossible. Ambrose goes on to say that after the wind
changed the king “jut devant Sor cil nuitie” (l. 2308); for which
the _Itin._ has “proxima nocte ante Tyrum fixis anchoris classis
persistebat” (p. 210).
[642] _Est._, ll. 2309-12.
[643] Ibn Djobeïr, _Recueil, Hist. Orientaux_, iii. 450.
[644] _Ib._
[645] See descriptions in Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 373, and
_Crusades_, 317, 318.
[646] The _Est._, ll. 2753, 2754, says four hundred knights and seven
thousand foot. The _Itin._, 61, says seven hundred knights, besides
other fighting men, and that with these “non prorsus ad novem millia
robur numeratum excrevit.”
[647] “Un samedi al seir,” _Est._, l. 2372; date from _Itin._, 211,
R. Diceto, ii. 94, _Gesta_, 169.
[648] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” _Est._, l. 2310.
[649] _Est._, ll. 2312-24; cf. _Itin._, 210, 211.
[650] _Gesta_, 169; R. Howden, iii. 113.
[651] _Itin._, 211.
[652] _Est._, ll. 4575-88; _Itin._, 213, 214.
[653] R. Devizes, 50.
[654] _Gesta_, 170.
[655] R. Devizes, _l.c._
[656] _Est._, ll. 4610-16; _Itin._, 214, 215.
[657] R. Devizes, 50, 51.
[658] _Est._, ll. 4605-8; _Itin._, 214; cf. _Gesta_, 170, and see M.
Gaston Paris’s remarks in his introduction to _Est._, p. lxxiii.
[659] _Est._, ll. 4609-88, _Itin._, 215, 216, Bohadin, 222. The
dates are from Bohadin, whose narrative is by far the clearest; the
western writers have confused the two assaults, and the date in the
_Itinerarium_ is impossible.
[660] _Gesta_, 170; R. Howden, iii. 113.
[661] _Est._, l. 4808; _Itin._, 220.
[662] Bohadin, 222-4, 227, 228.
[663]
“Car nus reis n’iert mielz entechies Fors d’une teche qu’il aveit,
Cele que _nul mal ne saveit_; Cele que l’em clame simplesse.” _Est._,
ll. 9112-15.
[664] Ibn Alathir; _Recueil des Hist. des Croisades, Hist. Orient._,
II, i. 58. Cf. Ernoul, _Chronique_, 181-3.
[665] “Vir Leviannigena,” R. Devizes, 52; the reference is evidently
to Isaiah xxvii. 1.
[666] _Gesta_, 170. Bohadin, 225, gives the date of Conrad’s
departure for Tyre as “Monday 30 Jomada 1.” As 30 Jomada 1 (_i. e._,
June 25) that year was Tuesday, he must mean either Monday 24 or
Tuesday 25.
[667] _Gesta_, 170, 171.
[668] _Itin._, 122.
[669] “Post multum vero temporis,” _Gesta_, 171; but as we have seen
that Conrad went to Tyre on June 24 or 25, and we shall see that he
was back again at Acre early in July, the writer must surely have
meant “non multum.”
[670] _Gesta_, 171; R. Howden, iii. 114.
[671] See lists in _Est._, ll. 4705-35, and _Itin._, 217, 218.
[672] _Gesta_, 173; _Est._, ll. 4815-34, 4867-71; _Itin._, 222.
[673] _Gesta_, 173; R. Howden, iii. 117.
[674] Bohadin, 229, 230; _Est._, ll. 4841-63.
[675] _Gesta_, 174; Bohadin, 230.
[676] Bohadin, _l.c._
[677] According to one version, they implicitly refused it by
requiring, in addition, other conditions such as the garrison had not
power to accept without Saladin’s consent, which he was quite certain
not to give; _Gesta_, _l.c._, followed by R. Howden, iii. 171. Cf.
Bohadin, 233.
[678] Cf. Bohadin, 234, with _Gesta_, _l.c._
[679] _Est._, ll. 4927-42; cf. _Itin._, 224, 225.
[680] _Gesta_, 175; cf. _Est._, ll. 4943-7, and _Itin._, 225.
[681] _Est._, ll. 4948-5040; _Itin._, 225-8; date from _Gesta_, 174.
[682] _Gesta_, 175.
[683] “Le Balafré.”
[684] See the conflicting accounts in _Itin._, 229, _Gesta_, 175, and
R. Howden, iii. 118, 119.
[685] Bohadin, 230, 235.
[686] See the various accounts of these negotiations in Bohadin,
235-7; Ibn Alathyr, _Recueil des Hist. des Crois., Hist. Orient._,
II, i. 44-7; other Arab authorities collected in Abu Shama, _ib._, V,
22-5; _Gesta_ and R. Howden, _ll.cc._
[687] _Gesta_, 177, 178.
[688] _Ib._, 178.
[689] See Note II at end.
[690] _Itin._, 233.
[691] R. Devizes, 52.
[692] _Itin._, 233, 234. According to Bohadin, French ed. p. 238,
this duty was entrusted to Conrad; the passage is omitted in the
Leyden MS. edited by Schultens, but is reproduced in an emphatic form
by Abu Shama (_Recueil, Hist. Orient._, V, 26).
[693] _Gesta_, 179, 180; _Itin._, 234.
[694] Bohadin, 237, 242; _Gesta_, 179. The _Estoire_, ll. 5217-19,
says the Franks were to have as hostages “Les plus hauz Turs e les
plus sages Que l’em poreit en Acre eslire,” and does not specify what
was arranged as to the garrison. But from the sequel it is quite
clear that the hostages really consisted of the whole body of the
garrison.
[695] Bohadin, 238. Cf. Ibn Alathyr, 47.
[696] He had sent his baggage thither on the night of the 12th,
Bohadin, 239; a fact which misled the author of the _Itinerarium_
(234) into saying that Saladin himself retired “eadem nocte sequenti
proxima post ingressionem nostram.” The _Gesta_, 181, agrees with
Bohadin in placing Saladin’s own removal on July 14.
[697] Bohadin, _l.c._
[698] _Ib._, 239, 240; cf. _Gesta_, 180.
[699] _Gesta_, 181, 182.
[700] _Ib._, 182. Cf. _Itin._, 234.
[701] See Note I at end.
[702] Otto of S. Blaise says of Richard: “Praeda communi universorum
sudore adquisita inter suos tantum distributa reliquos privavit, in
seque odia omnium concitavit. Omnibus enim fortiori militum robore
praestabat, et ideo pro velle suo cuncta disponens reliquos principes
parvipendebat” (Pertz, xx. 323). “Reliquos” seems here to include
Philip. Even Rigord does not go so far as this. It is certain that
Philip got his due share of the prisoners; and there is no reason to
doubt that he also got, as the English writers say, his due share of
the city and its contents.
[703] _Gesta_, 182, 183.
[704] _Ib._, 184; _Est._, ll. 5050-61; _Itin._, 235, 236.
[705] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[706] _Itin._, 236.
[707] _Gesta_, _l.c._; _Est._, ll. 5054, 5055.
[708] _Gesta_, _l.c._; _Est._, ll. 5056, 5057, 5062, 5063; _Itin._,
235. Geoffrey only “held” his fiefs in the sense that he was legally
seised of them; they were Joppa, Caesarea, and Ascalon, all in the
enemy’s hands. Conrad’s were Tyre, Sidon, and Beyrout.
[709] _Gesta_, 184.
[710] R. Diceto, ii. 95.
[711] _Est._, ll. 5305-28; _Itin._, 238; _Gesta_, _l.c._; in this
last authority the clause about forty days’ notice after Richard’s
return is omitted, and the date of the oath is given, July 29.
[712] _Gesta_, _l.c._
[713] Rigord, 118.
[714] _Est._, ll. 5333-4; _Itin._, 239; _Gesta_, 185. The latter make
the date July 31; the _Itinerarium_ makes it August 1.
[715] Rigord, 117; date from R. Howden, iii. 126.
[716] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx, 323.
[717] _Gesta_, 185, 186.
[718] Bohadin, 238-40.
[719] _Gesta_, 180.
[720] _Itin._, 232.
[721] A certain number of the captive Christians of rank were to be
chosen by name by the two kings. See Note II at end.
[722] Bohadin, 240.
[723] From 17 Jomada II (= July 12) to 18 Rajab.
[724] The writer of the _Gesta_, 187, gives the appointed day as
August 9; no doubt imagining the “month” to mean four weeks.
[725] Rigord, 116.
[726] _Gesta_, 185. If the prisoners were really as numerous as our
authorities represent, the whole of Philip’s share could hardly have
gone, with him and his suite, in two galleys. Probably he took the
picked ones only.
[727] _Ib._, 186, 187; _Est._, ll. 5414-86; _Itin._, 242, 243.
[728] _Gesta_, 187.
[729] Bohadin, 241, 242.
[730] The writer of the _Gesta_, 187, who gives the date for the
original first term as August 9, says it was on that day postponed
“in diem undecimum post illum.” It is, however, clear from Bohadin
that the postponement cannot have been agreed upon till after the
11th; and it is equally clear from the sequel that the term as
ultimately fixed cannot have been later than the 20th. This would be
the fortieth day from the surrender—which is what the writer of the
_Gesta_ asserts in p. 179 to have been the term originally fixed for
payment of the whole ransom. Evidently he is correct in his implied
date, and wrong only in his mode of arriving at it.
[731] _Gesta_, 188, 189. “Sui cum eo” in p. 189 must surely be an
error for either “sui cum me,” or, much more probably, “mei cum eo.”
[732] The _Est._, ll. 5613-46. and _Itin._, 245, place Richard’s
encampment outside the walls and the skirmish or skirmishes which
followed it after the slaughter of the garrison, _i. e._ after
August 20. But the whole narrative of the surrender of Acre and
the proceedings there is in the _Gesta_ arranged with such minute
chronological order that it can hardly fail to be founded on
documentary authority so far as its dates are concerned, while the
chronology of both _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_, just at this period,
is vague and confused in the extreme.
[733] Bohadin, 242, 243; cf. _Gesta_, 189; R. Howden, iii. 127, 128;
_Est._, ll. 5513-39; _Itin._, 243; R. Diceto, ii. 94; R. Devizes, 52.
All the authorities, Bohadin included, who give a date at all make
it Tuesday, August 20, except the _Itinerarium_, which unaccountably
says “die Veneris proximo post Assumptionem Beatae Mariae,” _i. e._
Friday, August 16.
[734] Letter of Richard in R. Howden, iii. 131.
[735] Bohadin, 243. As to the way in which the Frank soldiers had
treated the corpses, the statements in _Gesta_, 189 (copied in R.
Howden, iii. 128) must be compared with Bohadin, _l.c._, whence it
appears, first, that whatever was done to the bodies did not shock
him, for he makes no comment on it; and secondly, that the Saracens
who went to look at them next morning could quite well have taken
them away then, if they had chosen to do so.
[736] Bohadin, 242.
[737] “Quibus sub hac conditione vita concessa est, si Saladinus pro
redemptione eorum 70,000 bisantiorum dare vellet,” R. Coggeshall, 32.
“Qui [Caracois et Mestocus] ... cum per interpretes deditionem urbis
promitterent et capitum redemtionem, rex Anglorum volebat viribus
vincere desperatos, volebat et victos pro redemtione corporum capita
solvere, sed agente rege Francorum indulta est eis tantum vita cum
indemnitate membrorum, si post deditionem civitatis et dationem
omnium quae possidebant Crux Dominica redderetur.” R. Devizes, 51.
[738] _Gesta_, 179, followed by R. Howden, iii. 121.
[739] See the curious statement in a letter written about this time
by El-Fadhel, one of Saladin’s secretaries, to the Divan at Bagdad:
“The number of barbaric tongues among these people from the west is
outrageous, and outdoes everything that can be imagined. Sometimes,
when we take a prisoner, we can only communicate with him through a
series of interpreters—one translates the Frank’s words to another,
who translates them again to a third.” Abu Shama, _Hist. des Crois._,
iv. 15.
[740] “Si fud la chose esguardee A un concile ou assemblerent Li
halt home, qui esguarderent Que des Sarazins ocireient Le plus,”
etc., _Est._, ll. 5524-7; cf. _Itin._, 243. The _Gesta_, 189, and R.
Howden, iii. 128, say expressly that the duke of Burgundy caused the
French king’s share of the prisoners to be slaughtered likewise.
[741] “E dont furent li cop vengie De quarels d’arbaleste a tor, Les
granz merciz al Creator!” _Est._, ll. 5540-2; cf. _Itin._, _l.c._
[742] Extract from Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, _Hist. des Crois._,
iv. 277, 278. It is probably to this that Bohadin alludes when he
speaks of “reprisals” as one of the motives to which the massacre at
Acre was attributed; and it is he who adds (p. 243) that it was also
ascribed to Richard’s sense of the risk of leaving so many prisoners
behind him. The story told in the _Gesta_, 189, and R. Howden, iii.
127, that Saladin had wantonly provoked the retaliation by beheading
on August 18 all the Christian prisoners who should have been
exchanged for his own men next day, is obviously a fiction; and it is
clear that the leaders of the host were not even misled by a false
report, for the _Estoire_ and the _Itinerarium_ make no mention of
any such thing.
[743] _Est._, ll. 5543-5, _Itin._, 244.
[744] _Est._, ll. 5384-7; _Itin._, 240; cf. Bohadin, 244.
[745] _Gesta_, 190.
[746] _Est._, ll. 5550-65; _Itin._, 244.
[747] _Est._, l. 5675; _Itin._, 247, 248. This would include three
hundred (or five hundred, R. Howden) Christian prisoners who were in
Acre when it was surrendered. _Gesta_, 178; R. Howden, iii. 120.
[748] _Gesta_, 190; R. Howden, iii. 128. Bohadin, 244, gives the date
of the departure, 29 Rajab (= Thursday, August 22).
[749] _Est._, ll. 5677-702; _Itin._, 248.
[750] _Est._, ll. 5704-14; _Itin._, _l.c._
[751] Bohadin, 244-6.
[752] This is the date given by the _Est._, ll. 5721-33, and
_Itin._, 249. Bohadin (244), Ibn Alathyr (_Recueil_, II. ii. 48),
and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, _ib._, iv. 33) say 1 Jaban (= August
24). From this point to the Crusaders’ departure from Caesarea, I
follow Bohadin’s reckoning for the movements of Saladin, on whom he
was in attendance, and the reckoning of the two Frank chroniclers
of the Crusade (the writers of _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_) for
the movements of the host, of which one of them is universally
acknowledged to have been a member, and I personally believe the
other to have been so likewise. We shall find that from August 30 to
September 6, 1191, Bohadin’s dates are confused; a like confusion may
have affected them for the whole period from August 24, but of this
we cannot be sure.
[753] _Est._, ll. 5751-95; _Itin._, 249-51; cf. Bohadin, 244-5.
[754] _Itin._, 251.
[755] _Est._, ll. 5800-60; _Itin._, 251-2.
[756] The difficulty is complicated by the contradictory descriptions
of the site in _Est._, ll. 5889-90, and 5935, and in _Itin._, 253,
254. The present native name of Athlit is Khirbet Dustrey. One is
tempted to suggest that “Destreitz” might be an attempt to reproduce
the sound of, and give a meaning to, this native appellation; but
as an Arabic scholar has been good enough to answer a question on
the subject by informing me that “it is quite impossible to trace
the word Dustrey” in that language, one is driven to conclude that
the corruption has taken place in the opposite direction, and that
“Dustrey” is a modern Arab form of the old French “Destreitz” (Latin
“Districtum).”
[757] _Est._, ll. 5863-92, 5935-42; _Itin._, 253, 254.
[758] Bohadin, 245, 246.
[759] Its Arabic name is Nahr es Zerka, “blue” or “grey river.”
[760] Bohadin, 247-50.
[761] _Est._, ll. 5981-4; _Itin._, 256.
[762] _Est._, ll. 5944-6004; _Itin._, 255-6. The date of the arrival
of the host at Caesarea has to be made out by counting the days’
marches and halts, as given by these two writers, since the departure
from Acre. A question arises whether Ambrose’s “deus jours de
sejour” (l. 5936) at Casal des Destreitz means two whole days and
three nights, _i. e._, August 27-30, or two nights and one whole day
besides the day of arrival there, _i. e._, August 27-29. The word in
the _Itinerarium_—“biduo”—does not help to a decision; but Bohadin
does help, though indirectly. He says (250) the Franks reached
Caesarea on “Friday 6 Jaban.” This date is self-contradictory; the 6
Jaban (= August 29) was Thursday, and from this point to 14 Jaban (=
September 6) all Bohadin’s days of the week are one day in advance
of his days of the month. On reaching the last date of the series,
however, we shall find from other evidence that the day of the week,
not that of the month, is the correct one all through; therefore the
“two days” are to be taken in the widest sense, and the entry into
Caesarea was on Friday, August 30.
[763] Bohadin, 250, 251; for the date, which he gives as 8 Jaban (=
August 31), see preceding note. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, 34, gives
it correctly, 9 Jaban = September 1.
[764] Bohadin, 251, 252.
[765] Bohadin, 253.
[766] _Est._, ll. 6039-46; _Itin._, 257.
[767] Bohadin, 255.
[768] _Est._, ll. 6047-64; _Itin._, 258. Oddly enough, Richard soon
afterwards forgot the date of his own wound, for in a letter inserted
in R. Howden, iii. 130, he says it occurred on the third day before
Saladin’s defeat (at Arsuf), _i. e._ on September 5. We shall see
that this date is impossible, because on September 5 there was no
fighting at all.
[769] _Est._, ll. 6071-90; _Itin._, 258, 259.
[770] Bohadin, 255-7.
[771] _Est._, ll. 6092-111; _Itin._, 259. Bohadin, 257, describes the
site as “a place called Birka” (the Pond, or Marsh), “whence the sea
was visible.” It is probably one of the streamlets which, when not
dried up or choked up with sand, run into the Nahr el Falik, a little
creek about eight miles south of the mouth of the Salt River.
[772] _Est._, ll. 6114-17; _Itin._, _l.c._
[773] Bohadin, 258, calls it “Saturday 14 Jaban” (= September 6), but
all the Frank writers show that the date of the battle was really
Saturday September 7 = 15 Jaban.
[774] _Est._, ll. 6191-4, 6204-8; _Itin._, 261.
[775] Cf. Bohadin, 258, _Est._, l. 6211, and _Itin._, 262 and 274;
the passage “Sicque et in parte ... fixere tentoria” in this latter
page seems to be out of place, and to represent Bohadin’s words
(_l.c._) “the foremost of the Frank footmen reached the gardens of
Arsuf.”
[776] _Est._, ll. 6212-51; _Itin._, 262, 263.
[777] _Est._, ll. 6157-64; _Itin._, 260, 261.
[778] According to _Est._, ll. 6427-30, he was a “compainz” of
Richard from England.
[779] _Est._, ll. 6255-472; _Itin._, 264-9.
[780] Bohadin, 258.
[781] _Est._, ll. 6475-92; cf. _Itin._, 269, 270.
[782] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6532-616, _Itin._, 273, 274, and Bohadin,
259-60.
[783] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6621-38, _Itin._, 274, 275, Richard’s letters
in R. Howden, iii. 130-2, and Bohadin, 261. Other accounts of the
battle are in _Gesta_, 191, and R. Howden, iii. 128, 129; both with a
wrong date and some other obvious errors.
[784] Letter in R. Howden, _l.c._ 131.
[785] Bohadin, 261.
[786] _Ib._
[787] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6895-902, and _Itin._, 281, with Bohadin, 261.
[788] _Est._, ll. 6683-734, 6903-25; _Itin._, 276, 277, 281, 282;
Bohadin, 261-2—the last again with wrong days of the month.
[789] _Est._, ll. 6925-35; _Itin._, 281, 282.
[790] Bohadin, 262, gives the date of Saladin’s arrival at Ramlah
as 17 Jaban (= Monday, September 9); Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama,
_Recueil_, v. 40) makes it 19 Jaban (= September 11).
[791] Bohadin, 263; cf. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, v. 40-1, 43.
[792] Bohadin, 263-7. He says (266) that he heard one of the men
engaged in the demolition tell Saladin that they had dug through
a wall “a spear’s length” in thickness. What was the length of a
Saracen spear?
[793] Bohadin, 265, says 20 Shaban = September 12; but probably he is
a day behind as usual.
[794] _Ib._, 265, 266.
[795] _Est._, ll. 6941-7034; cf. _Itin._, 283.
[796] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 130.
[797] Bohadin, 267.
[798] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 132.
[799] The salutation of the letter is merely “N. dilecto et fideli
suo,” without any name.
[800] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 131, 132.
[801] _Est._, ll. 7038-58.
[802] _Ib._, ll. 7051-60; _Itin._, 285. For locality see note in
index to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Seint Abacuc.”
[803] _Est._, ll. 7061-6; _Itin._, _l.c._
[804] Bohadin, 270.
[805] Natroun is the form used by Bohadin; but Quatremère, _Hist. des
Sultans Mamelouks de l’Egypte_, t. ii, I^{ère} partie, p. 256, no.
10, says, “La forme la plus régulière de ce nom est Alatroun,” and
quotes a MS. Arabic geographical lexicon which gives the name thus.
It is better known in the corrupt form Latroun. The place seems to
be identical with a ruined castle which the Christian inhabitants of
the land told early pilgrims was the abode of the Penitent Thief.
This raises a question whether the story was derived from Alatroun
by way of _Latroun_ and _latro_, or _latro_ gave rise to Alatroun.
Quatremère inclines to the latter view.
[806] Bohadin, 270, 271.
[807] On October 13; Bohadin, 273.
[808] _Est._, ll. 7067-82; _Itin._, 286.
[809] Cf. _Est._, ll. 7075-7, with Bohadin, 279, who says some
Frankish ships with, “it was said,” five hundred men on board were
captured by the Turkish fleet on October 26.
[810] _Itin._, _l.c._
[811] _Est._, ll. 7083-175; _Itin._, 286-8.
[812] Bohadin, 274, 275.
[813] Bohadin, 277-80.
[814] _Itin._, 289.
[815] _Est._, ll. 7207-32; _Itin._, 290.
[816] “Car si a vos mescheiet E qui issi fust escheiet, Cristente
sereit tuee,” _Est._, ll. 7341-3.
[817] _Est._, ll. 7233-66; _Itin._, 291-4.
[818] Bohadin, 284, 285.
[819] _Ib._, 286.
[820] _Ib._
[821] _Itin._, 296.
[822] Bohadin, _l.c._; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 53.
[823] Ibn Alathyr, _l.c._
[824] Bohadin, 286, 287.
[825] In the French edition of Bohadin the date is given as “le 11
Chouwal,” _i. e._ November 1. But evidently this is impossible; it
must mean 21 Shawal = November 11.
[826] Bohadin, 287-91. The accounts of these negotiations given
in _Est._, ll. 7370-428, and _Itin._, 295-7, are obviously less
trustworthy.
[827] Bohadin, 292, says he went to Tell el Jezer, _i. e._ “the Hill
of the Bridge,” Stubbs, note 1 to _Itin._, 298; possibly a bridge
over the little river that runs through the Wady Ali, between Natroun
and Amwas. The Frank chroniclers say he went “dreit al Toron as
Chevalers,” _i. e._ Natroun, _Est._, ll. 7456-62; “versus Darum,”
_Itin._, 298. Stubbs in a note suggested that “Darum” here was a
phonetic error for “Toron”; this the _Estoire_ practically proves;
and I venture to think the passage furnishes a little bit of evidence
on another question, for if the Latin “translator” had “al Toron
as Chevalers” before his eyes, how came he to misrender it “versus
Darum”? whereas if Ambrose found “Darum” in his friend’s notes, and
noticed that it was a mistake, he would of course correct it in his
own version of the story.
[828] See Note III at end.
[829] _Est._, ll. 7429-41; cf. _Itin._, 297.
[830] _Est._, ll. 7471-6; cf. _Itin._, 298.
[831] _Est._, ll. 7477-8; _Itin._, 299, “verum non in deliciis.”
[832] Bohadin, 292.
[833] The later high road to Jerusalem from Joppa goes by Ramlah, but
not by Amwas and Beit Nuba; it passes further south, through the Wady
Ali.
[834] _Itin._, 305.
[835] See, _e. g._, the story of the fight in which the Earl of
Leicester was nearly lost, _Est._, ll. 7480-604, _Itin._, 300-3.
[836] See Note IV at end.
[837] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 17, with Ibn Alathyr, 54, who makes the day
December 22, while Roger makes it the 23rd.
[838] Abu Shama, _Recueil_, V., 49; seemingly from “récit du Cadi,”
_i. e._ Bohadin, but the passage does not occur in either the French
or the Dutch edition of Bohadin’s work.
[839] _Est._, ll. 7617-25; cf. _Itin._, 303.
[840] “E li Turc qui bien conisseient Le rei Richart e sa baniere E
sa vistece e sa maniere,” Est., ll. 7738-40. For “e sa baniere” the
_Itin._, 307, has “_ex_ ejus imminente baneria.” Probably _e_ in l.
7739 should be _a_.
[841] _Est._, ll. 7717-60; _Itin._, 306, 307. On the localities
mentioned in this incident see Note IV at end.
[842] _Est._, ll. 7627-704; cf. _Itin._, 305.
[843] _Est._, ll. 7705-16; cf. _Itin._, 305, 306.
[844] Place from R. Howden, iii. 179, who gives the date as S.
Hilary’s Day, January 13. The _Est._, _l.c._, and _Itin._, 308, say
merely that it was after Epiphany.
[845] _Est._, ll. 7761-80; _Itin._, _l.c._
[846] Ibn Alathyr, _Recueil Hist. Orient._, II. i. 55, 56. The
comments on the difficulties in the way of an effective blockade
which he ascribes to Richard are almost verbally identical with those
of the Knights as reported in _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_.
[847] Ibn Alathyr, _l.c._, 55; _Est._, ll. 7841-2; _Itin._, 310.
The exact date of the retirement is questionable, owing to the
doubt as to the date of the council. Ibn Alathyr (_l.c._) says the
host withdrew from Beit Nuba on 20 Dulheggia = January 8; Abu Shama
(_Recueil_, V. 49) quotes from “_Récit du Cadi_” a statement that the
withdrawal was on 22 Dulheggia (= January 10), but there is no such
thing in the printed editions of Bohadin. Perhaps Ibn Alathyr and
Roger of Howden may have erred in different ways from making one and
the same mistake, viz., assuming that the return to Ramlah took place
on the same day as the council, which is not necessarily implied in
any of the chronicles, Frank or Mussulman.
[848] _Est._, ll. 7799-810; _Itin._, 309.
[849] _Est._, ll. 7811-42; _Itin._, 310.
[850] Otherwise called Yabneh, Jafna, in older days Jamnia, and,
earlier still, Jabneel (Joshua xv. 2).
[851] _Est._, ll. 7843-95; _Itin._, 311, 312. Both these writers say
the host spent a night at Ibelin on its way to Ascalon. Imad-ed-Din
(_apud_ Abu Shama, 51) says “the Franks marched upon Ascalon on 3
Moharrem,” _i. e._ January 20, the date given in _Itin._, 312, as
that of the arrival there. I venture to think that the difficulty
suggested by Stubbs (_Itin._, _l.c._, note 2), as to reconciling
these dates with the statement in _Itin._, 311, that the duke of
Burgundy stayed eight days at the Casal des Plains, is an imaginary
one. Those eight days need not be crowded in before the setting out
of the rest of the host; the two parties may have gone in opposite
directions almost at the same time, since we shall find that they did
not come together again until several weeks later.
[852] _Est._ ll. 7967-8077; _Itin._, 315-17.
[853] “Ipse manibus aedificando,” _Itin._, 317. We shall presently
find an unimpeachable eye-witness testifying to having seen the king
performing a no less arduous manual labour at Darum.
[854] Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 50.
[855] See William of Tyre’s description of Darum: “Castrum in Idumaea
(ipsa est Edom) situm, trans torrentem illum qui dicitur Ægypti,
qui etiam terminus est Palestinae et praedictae regionis,” lib. xx.
c. 19. The earlier frontier—like the later one—was further to the
south-west, and the “river of Egypt” then was the Wady el Arish, or,
earlier still, another stream yet further westward.
[856] _Est._, ll. 8092-141; cf. _Itin._, 318, 319.
[857] _Est._, ll. 8143-54; _Itin._, 319, 320.
[858] _Est._, ll. 5329-50; _Itin._, 239. R. Coggeshall, 37, says
30,000 bezants.
[859] _Est._, ll. 8160-77; _Itin._, 320, 321.
[860] _Est._, ll. 8177-224; _Itin._, 321, 322.
[861] _Est._, 8225-34; _Itin._, 322, 323. The latter gives the date:
“Rex ... postquam Achon pervenerat in crastino Cinerum, postera die,”
etc. The morrow of Ash Wednesday 1192 was February 20.
[862] _Est._, ll. 8238-46; _Itin._, 323.
[863] The _Estoire_, ll. 8247-60, has in this passage a hiatus which
has to be supplied from _Itin._, 323, 324.
[864] _Itin._, 324; cf. _Est._, ll. 8265-70, where again there is a
hiatus.
[865] This is the version of Richard’s proceedings given by Bohadin,
293, who was with Saladin at Jerusalem all the time.
[866] Bohadin, 292, 293.
[867] _Ib._, 293, 294.
[868] _Itin._, 325.
[869] Bohadin, 294.
[870] The _Itin._, 324, says he left Acre on the Tuesday before
Easter, _i. e._, March 31.
[871] _Est._, ll. 8325-35; _Itin._, 326.
[872] “De ses Peitevins E de Mansels e de Angevins E des barons de
Normandie,” _Est._, ll. 8336-9; of Templars and Hospitaliers, with
Count Henry “and many others,” _Itin._, _l.c._
[873] _Est._, ll. 8340-52; _Itin._, 326, 327.
[874] _Est._, ll. 8429-42; _Itin._, 329, 330.
[875] _Est._, ll. 8287-304; _Itin._, 325.
[876] Bohadin, 293. He reckons the captured sheep at a thousand.
[877] _Itin._, 330.
[878] “Post Pascha completum,” _i. e._, after April 12; _Itin._, 333.
[879] _Est._, ll. 8519-646; _Itin._, 333-5.
[880] _Est._, ll. 8650-6, 8715-66; _Itin._, 336, 338.
[881] Bohadin, 297; R. Diceto, ii. 104. Roger of Howden, iii. 181,
gives the date as April 27.
[882] Bohadin, 297; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 53.
[883] Bohadin, _l.c._
[884] _Est._, ll. 8879-99; _Itin._, 341; R. Coggeshall, 35.
[885] Ibn Alathyr, 58.
[886] _Est._, ll. 8788-814; _Itin._, 339-41.
[887] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._; R. Howden, iii. 181.
[888] “Encore ne fu çou mie voirs,” Ernoul, 290.
[889] _Livre d’Eracle, Rec. Hist. Croisades, Hist. Occid._, ii.
190-3. William of Newburgh, lib. v. c. 16, and Roger of Wendover,
ed. Coxe, iii. 74, 75, give a letter purporting to have been
written by the “Old Man” to exculpate Richard from the charge of
having contrived Conrad’s death. In William’s version the letter is
addressed “principibus et omni populo Christianae religionis,” and
professes to have been written spontaneously; in Roger’s version
it is addressed to Duke Leopold of Austria, and Roger says (though
the letter itself does not say) that it was written at the request
of Richard during his imprisonment in Germany. William says, “Has
[literas] nimirum se vidisse atque legisse vir fide dignus mihi
protestatus est cum regi Francorum Parisius constituto solemniter
fuissent oblatae”; he adds that Philip formally accepted the document
as proof of Richard’s innocence; and he dates this transaction 1195.
The contents of the letter differ slightly in the two versions, but
both are substantially in agreement with the accounts in Ernoul and
Eracle of the circumstances which led to Conrad’s death. The letter
is unquestionably a forgery. It may have been circulated in the East
as well as in the West, and the “ultramarine” chroniclers may have
taken their story from it; there is, however, also a possibility that
both they and the composers of the letter—whoever these may have
been—all alike derived their information from a genuine source.
[890] “Li baron de France esteient En lor tentes hors de la vile,
Que haut que bas, plus que dis mile; E li haut ensemble parlerent
E a la marchise manderent Qu’ele lor rendist la citie Trestut en
peis e en quitie En guarde a l’oes le reis de France; E el respondi
sanz dotance Que quant li reis la revendreit Que mult volenters
li rendreit, Si ainz n’i ad autre seignor.” _Est._, ll. 8912-23.
For the last four lines the _Itinerarium_ (342) has: “Quibus ipsa
respondit quod quando rex Ricardus ipsam visere veniret, ipsi potius
redderet civitatem et nulli alii, sicut dominus suus moriens ei
praeciperat.” The context in _Estoire_ clearly shows that by “li
reis” in l. 8921 Ambrose meant not Richard but Philip; and it seems
most likely that this version is the correct one, although Ambrose,
as well as the Latin chronicler, has previously stated that Conrad
when dying had bidden Isabel “que la citie ne rendist Fors al cors le
rei d’Engleterre Ou al dreit seignor de la terre” (ll. 8858-64)—“ut
civitati Tyro conservandae vigilanter intenderet, nec cuiquam hominum
resignaret nisi regi Ricardo sive illi quem regnum jure contingebat
haereditario,” _Itin._, 340. Whom Conrad can have meant by the last
seven words (if indeed he really spoke them) is a puzzle of which I
can suggest no solution.
[891] _Est._, ll. 8774-7; _Itin._, 338.
[892] _Est._, ll. 8928-50, 8973-9016; _Itin._, 342, 343, 346, 347.
[893] _Est._, ll. 9021-62; _Itin._, 348, 349. The date of the wedding
is given by R. Diceto, ii. 104.
[894] _Est._, ll. 8961-70; _Itin._, 343.
[895] _Itin._, 299.
[896] _Ib._, 344, 345.
[897] _Ib._, 343, 346.
[898] _Est._, ll. 8956-9.
[899] _Est._, ll. 9127-45; _Itin._, 351.
[900] Bohadin, 295, 296, 298.
[901] The _Est._, ll. 9323-4, and _Itin._, 355, however, mention some
Genoese and Pisans as taking part in the final storming.
[902] The authorities say merely “un diemaine,” _Est._, l. 9175;
“quadam dominica,” _Itin._, 352; but we shall see later that it must
have been May 17.
[903] _Est._, ll. 9173-240; _Itin._, 352-4.
[904] Bohadin, 301.
[905] Bohadin’s version (_l.c._) of this is that they asked for time
to communicate with Saladin.
[906] _Est._, ll. 9174-368; _Itin._, 354-6; cf. Bohadin, 301. This
last, Ibn Alathyr (60), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, 54), date the
surrender May 23; as it seems to have been made late in the evening,
and the Mohammedan day begins at sunset, this date really agrees with
that given by the western writers.
[907] We hear nothing of a taking of Gaza; but Gaza had long ceased
to be a place of any military importance. Richard and his companions
passed through it on their way back to Ascalon (_Est._, l. 9389,
_Itin._, 356), so its Moslem garrison, if it had had one, had
evidently been withdrawn.
[908] _Est._, ll. 8369-86; _Itin._, _l.c._
[909] _Itin._, _l.c._
[910] _Est._, ll. 9387-94; _Itin._, 356, 357.
[911] Cf. _Est._, ll. 9395-407, and _Itin._, 357, 358. For Cassaba,
see G. Paris, note in Glossary to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Canoie as
Estornels.”
[912] _Est._, ll. 9408-32; _Itin._, 358.
[913] The first version is Bohadin’s, 301, 302; the second, that
of Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 54. Bohadin calls the castle
Mejdel Yaba; in Abu Shama’s compilation the name appears as Mejdel
Djenab, but the compiler adds: “This is the name given by El Imad
in the _Book of the Conquest_, but in _The Lightning_ we find
‘Mejdel Yaba’”; while the text of Imad-ed-Din published by Count
Landsberg has “Mejdel el Habab” (footnote to Abu Shama, _l.c._). Of
these Arabic names only one has been located—Mejdel Yaba, called by
the Franks Mirabel, which is so far from the Wady el Hesy that it
cannot possibly be the place meant (G. Paris, Glossary to _Estoire_,
_s.v._ “Fiier”). I am indebted to a distinguished Arabic scholar
for the information that Mejdel Yaba means “Glory of Yaba,” Mejdel
Djenab “Glory of the district,” Mejdel el Habab “Glory of the
lover”; and that the Arabic for Castle of Figs or Figtrees would be
Kalat-el-Tinat. It is possible that a place bearing one of the three
former Arabic names might be called Fig or Figtree Castle by the
Franks for some reason quite independent of its native appellation,
and that the narratives of the Christian and Moslem writers may be
only two different versions of one event; but there is also another
possibility. Imad-ed-Din dates the disaster of the Franks at Mejdel
Djenab (or Yaba, or El Habab) 14 Jomada I, _i. e._ May 28, the date
given by Ambrose and the _Itinerarium_ for the capture of Figtree
Castle; but Bohadin says it occurred “when the host had spent the
fourteenth day of Jomada I” at El Hesy. This should apparently mean
that it took place on the following day, _i. e._ 15 Jomada I = May
29. To me it seems more probable that this version is the correct
one, and that the Frank and the Moslem writers are here relating two
distinct events, one of which took place on May 28 and the other on
May 29. If so, it would not be unnatural that of two expeditions made
within such a short period, each party should record only the one
which terminated in their own favour.
[914] _Est._, ll. 9433-508; _Itin._, 358-61.
[915] “E dist a sei: S’or ne retornes, Veirement as terre perdue.”
_Est._, ll. 9464-5.
[916] Lib. xiv. c. 22.
[917] “Ço fu en juin” (“intrante jam mense Junio,” _Itin._) “Lors
s’esmut l’ost de la Canoie Par mi les plains tut contre val Vers
Ybelin de l’Ospital, Joste Ebron,” _Est._, ll. 9509-14; _Itin._, 360.
Bohadin places this movement a little earlier; after mentioning an
event which he dates 17 Jomada I (= May 31) he continues “The enemy
meanwhile had moved from El Hesy, and was at the diverging-point
of the ways of which one leads to Ascalon, one to Beit Djibrin,
another to the tents of Islam” (303). Stubbs (note to _Itin._, 360)
suggests Galatia, in Arabic Keratieh, as the place indicated. As
Bohadin frequently antedates by a day or two the movements of the
Franks, he may have done so in this instance. “El Hesy” here, as in a
later passage, seems to stand for the Wady el Hesy as a whole; thus
including of course the Canebrake.
[918] _Est._, ll. 9519-52; _Itin._, 361.
[919] _Est._, ll. 9553-680; cf. _Itin._, 361-4. On one passage,
omitted in my summary of William’s speech, one would like to have
more light. “Remembre te de l’aventure De la riche descomfiture E de
Haltfort que rescussis, Que li cuens de Seint Gile assis Aveit, que
tu desbaretas E vileinement l’en jetas” (ll. 9609-14). The editors of
Bertrand de Born and of the _Estoire_ know nothing of the event here
alluded to, and there seems to be no mention of it elsewhere and no
clue to its date.
[920] _Est._, ll. 9681-90. The last line is: “Devant les barons
d’Escalone.” _Barons_ here is nonsense. G. Paris suggests “bailles,”
a possible equivalent for the Latin, “extra pomoeria Ascaloniae
foris,” _Itin._, 365.
[921] _Est._, ll. 9692-720; _Itin._, _l.c._, giving the date, June 4.
[922] Bohadin, 299, 300.
[923] _Ib._, 303.
[924] _Est._, ll. 9817-21; _Itin._, 369.
[925] Bohadin, 310.
[926] _Est._, ll. 9813-17; _Itin._, _l.c._
[927] _Est._, ll. 9748-88; _Itin._, 367. “A close Pentecoste,
mien escient le samedi,” says Ambrose, l. 9748; the _Itinerarium_
says “Die Dominica, scilicet in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis”; but
Bohadin, 303, says 23 Jomada I, which agrees with Ambrose. The French
translation of Bohadin has erroneously “8 juin.”
[928] _Est._, ll. 9797-802; Bohadin, 304.
[929] _Itin._, 368; Bohadin, _l.c._
[930] _Est._, ll. 9806-10; _Itin._, _l.c._
[931] _Est._, ll. 9809-13; _Itin._, 368, 369. Bohadin, 304, says the
Franks left Natroun and advanced to Beit Nuba on Wednesday, 27 Jomada
I; _i. e._ June 10.
[932] Bohadin, 304, 305.
[933] Bohadin, 305. The French translation gives the date as “le
19 de Jomada premier,” which would be June 2. Possibly “19” is a
misprint for “29.”
[934] _Est._, ll. 9835-64; _Itin._, 359.
[935] Cf. _Est._, ll. 9885-922, and _Itin._, 371, 372.
[936] _Est._, ll. 9947-10088; Bohadin, _l.c._; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_
Abu Shama, 55; all with date June 16; _Itin._, 373, with date June 17.
[937] _Est._, ll. 10140-210; _Itin._, 379-81.
[938] _Est._, ll. 10213-59; _Itin._, 381, 382.
[939] Bohadin, 306.
[940] Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55, says Saladin heard on 9
Jomada II (= Monday, June 22) that the Franks had set out in the
night. Ambrose (l. 10304) says merely “Sunday.”
[941] _Est._, ll. 10265-312; _Itin._, 383-5; cf. Bohadin, 306.
[942] Bohadin, 306, 307; cf. Imad-ed-Din, 55, _Est._, ll. 10313-23,
and _Itin._, 385.
[943] Bohadin, 307.
[944] Among the Saracens, according to Bohadin (_l.c._), it was
reported that one of this second party of scouts was Richard
himself, who, disguised as an Arab, made a circuit of the Egyptians’
encampment and then, having found them all sound asleep, rode back
and called up his men. Such a thing is by no means impossible; but
if it were a fact, it would probably have been known to the Franks,
whereas it was evidently not known even as a rumour to Ambrose, who
would surely have made the most of it in his poetic story.
[945] Bohadin, 306, 307.
[946] _Itin._, 385-7; cf. _Est._, ll. 10329-421.
[947] Bohadin, 307, 308.
[948] Cf. Bohadin, 308, 309, with _Est._, ll. 10435-511, and _Itin._,
387-90.
[949] _Est._, ll. 10512-64; _Itin._, 390, 391.
[950] Bohadin, 309. He calls the day “Tuesday, 11th of Jomada II”;
but as 11 Jomada II in that year was a Wednesday, it is doubtful
whether he means Tuesday 10 (= June 23) or Wednesday 11 (= June 24).
The former is almost certainly the true date. Roger of Howden, iii.
182, says the affair occurred “on the eve of S. John”; Imad-ed-Din,
_apud_ Abu Shama, 55, says the Frank army set out on the night
preceding June 22; the _Estoire_, l. 10304, says it set out “un seir
de diemaine,” which thus seems to have been Sunday June 21; and both
_Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ clearly indicate that the fight took
place on the second morning after. Imad-ed-Din, _l.c._, locates it at
“El Hesy”; but we cannot possibly set aside the plain and unanimous
testimony of Bohadin and the Frank writers as to Kuweilfeh. The
Franks do not mention El Hesy at all on this occasion; Bohadin makes
it clear that both parties passed through that locality on their way.
It seems plain also that in this case, as in an earlier one, “El
Hesy” stands not for the village now so called, but for the Wady, and
more especially for its western end, or head. In one place the actual
phrase used is “the source of El Hesy” (“la source d’El Hasy,” French
edition of Bohadin, _l.c._; “caput El Hissi,” Schultens’ edition,
232).
[951] Bohadin, 311-15.
[952] Cf. Bohadin, 309, _Est._, ll. 10565-75, and _Itin._, 392.
Bohadin says they got back to their camp on “Friday, 16 Jomada II,”
which is self-contradictory, as 16 Jomada II (= June 26) that year
was Monday. He may have meant either Monday June 26 or Friday 30; he
may even have meant both, and confused them together. The indications
in _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ are vague, but they seem to imply a
two days’ journey from the Round Cistern to Ramlah; thus Ramlah may
have been reached on the 26th and the “camp” proper, at Beit Nuba, on
the 30th. Richard seems not to have gone to Beit Nuba at all, but to
his former quarters at Castle Arnold; R. Coggeshall, 40.
[953] _Est._, ll. 10576-626; _Itin._, 393, 394.
[954] _Est._, ll. 10639-64; _Itin._, 394, 395.
[955] R. Coggeshall, 39, 40. Ralf says Richard caused Saladin’s
captured envoys to be shot to death with arrows by his own servants
in the sight of the host, neither portion of it (that is, his own
adherents or those of Burgundy) knowing whence the victims came nor
why they were thus slain. It seems hardly possible that Ambrose
should have omitted to mention so strange an incident if it really
was seen by the Crusaders of whom he was one. Ralf further represents
Hugh as setting out for Acre with his forces immediately, and Richard
with the rest of the host following next day; whereas Ambrose
distinctly says that the French quitted Beit Nuba at the same time
as the king (_Est._, ll. 10709-10). The _Itinerarium_, 397, says the
same.
[956] Bohadin, 315.
[957] “Quatre liues,” _Est._, l. 10690; “quatuor tantum nunc
distabant millia,” _Itin._, 396. Beit Nuba is about thirteen miles
from Jerusalem. Seemingly “liues” and “millia” here must stand for
hours of march, as Stubbs says they often do in Crusade history.
[958] _Itin._, 376. This passage follows the account of an event
which the same writer dates June 17, and other authorities June 16.
[959] “Par la Porte David estoit la voie qui maine en Belleem. Em mi
voie estoit une Esglyze ou Seint Elie fu mananz,” _Contin. W. Tyr._,
MS. Rothelin, _Recueil Hist. Occid._, ii. 512. R. Howden, iii. 182,
calls the place “capellam S. Elyae quae distat a Jerusalem per tres
leucas.” As the distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is about
six miles, Roger must here have used the word _leuca_ as equivalent
to a mile (as the author of the _Itinerarium_ seems to have done
frequently). On the other hand, there appears to be a mistake in the
passage from the Rothelin MS.; seeing that “David’s Gate” was the
west gate of Jerusalem, and that Bethlehem lies south of that city,
the natural “way that leads to Bethlehem” would be by the “Gate of
Sion.”
[960] _Est._, ll. 10089-135; _Itin._, 377, 378. Both writers give
the date as “the third day before S. John’s,” and the Latin one adds
“die S. Albani,” _i. e._ June 22. On June 22, however, Richard was,
as we have seen, at Galatia. Roger of Howden’s account of the affair
(iii. 182) is obviously confused. He gives no date; but in his work,
as in the _Estoire_ and the _Itinerarium_, the story is immediately
followed by that of the Egyptian caravan. Probably therefore the true
date is Sunday, June 21.
[961] R. Coggeshall, 40, 41.
[962] Joinville, c. 108.
[963] Bohadin, 315; _Est._, ll. 10704-5.
[964] Bohadin, 316.
[965] Bohadin, 316-22; obviously more authentic than the version in
_Est._, ll. 10747-63, and _Itin._, 398, 399.
[966] _Est._, ll. 10706-14; _Itin._, 397, giving the date.
[967] _Est._, ll. 10768-85; _Itin._, 399-401. The date of leaving
Joppa comes from Bohadin, 322, that of the arrival at Acre from
_Itin._, 400-1.
[968] _Est._, ll. 10935-55; _Itin._, 403-4. (The dates will appear
from the sequel.) The former writer seems to imply, and the latter
distinctly states, that Richard had really and avowedly called his
ships together for the purpose of sailing at once for Europe, the
attack on Beyrout being intended as a mere incident on the way.
I cannot believe this view of the matter to be based on anything
else than an erroneous impression current among the lower ranks of
the host. Richard may very likely have hoped that the capture of
Beyrout would lead to fresh overtures for peace on the part of the
Moslems, and to such concessions from them as might enable him to
make a treaty which would end the war for a time, and thus set him
honourably free to depart before the date which he had fixed; he may
have made preparations for such a contingency, and if so, he would no
doubt make them openly because a possibility of their purpose being
misconstrued could hardly occur to his mind. Richard might break a
treaty or a contract without scruple, and also without appreciable
damage to his reputation in his own day; but a sudden desertion of
the Holy Land such as these writers supposed him to have contemplated
would have been a flagrant breach of what he and every other man
of the world of chivalry held far more sacred than any treaty or
contract—his knightly word, solemnly and publicly pledged only a few
weeks before. Such an act must infallibly have brought upon him, in
his own eyes and in the eyes of all true knights, a double share of
the “shame and everlasting contempt” which he had once denounced
against Philip Augustus, and would be utterly irreconcileable with
his whole character. The Beyrout project seems really to have been
much more definite and important than we should gather from the
casual way in which it is mentioned by the two Frank chroniclers. It
had evidently been planned in concert with the other leaders before
Richard left Joppa, since as early as July 22—five days before the
king reached Acre—Saladin had learned from his spies that “the Franks
were moving on Beyrout”; Bohadin, 322.
[969] Bohadin, 322, 323; dates, which he gives in his usual
self-contradictory fashion, corrected by help of _Est._, ll.
10807-10, and _Itin._, 400, 401.
[970] Cf. Bohadin, 327, 328, _Itin._, 401-3, and _Est._, ll. 10815-25.
[971] _Est._, ll. 10910, 10911.
[972] Both _Estoire_, ll. 10957-63, and _Itinerarium_, 404, say the
messengers reported that Joppa was already taken and the garrison
shut up in the citadel; but the sequel shows that they reached Acre
on the date given above, July 28, three days before matters had come
to this pass.
[973] _Est._, ll. 10968-76; _Itin._, 504. Cf. R. Coggeshall, 41, 42.
[974] Cf. _Itin._, 404, 405, _Est._, ll. 10979-11037, and R.
Coggeshall, 42. The _Estoire_ (ll. 11033-7) says they lay off Joppa
“tote la nuit del _samedi_”; which can be correct only if Ambrose has
here fallen, as some of the Frank chroniclers of the Crusade seem to
have occasionally done, into the eastern way of reckoning days, from
evening to evening.
[975] _Est._, ll. 10021-4.
[976] Bohadin, 328-31.
[977] _Itin._, 405, 406; cf. _Est._, ll. 11040-54.
[978] Bohadin, 331, 332.
[979] Cf. Bohadin, 332, with _Itin._, 407, 408, and _Est._, ll.
11079-11113.
[980] _Est._, ll. 11114-26.
[981] Bohadin, 333.
[982] _Itin._, 407, 408; _Est._, ll. 11127-53; Bohadin, 332; R.
Coggeshall, 43.
[983] Bohadin, 333.
[984] _Est._, ll. 11154-8; _Itin._, 408.
[985] _Itin._, 410, 411; _Est._, ll. 11164-238; cf. Bohadin, 333.
[986] R. Coggeshall, 43.
[987] Cf. the French translation of Bohadin, 334, with the Latin
in Schultens’s edition, 252: “Cognitamque meam in bello operam
praestabo.”
[988] Bohadin, 333-5. He dates the negotiations “evening of Saturday
19 Rajab” and the removal to Ramlah “Sunday 20 Rajab.” Saturday was
really 20 Rajab = August 1. Here, as usual with eastern writers,
“evening” stands for “eve,” _i. e._ the “vigil” or evening _before_.
[989] _Ib._, 335.
[990] _Itin._, 412; Est., ll. 11295-9.
[991] _Itin._, 413; Est., ll. 11318-27.
[992] Bohadin, 336; cf. R. Coggeshall, 44.
[993] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 44, 45, _Itin._, 414, 415, and _Est._, ll.
11379-407.
[994] R. Coggeshall, 44, cf. _Itin._, 420. The latter writer puts the
episode of the Saracens re-occupying the town and Richard re-taking
it at the end of his narrative of the fight, _i. e._ after the
victory outside the walls; but as he introduces it with “Interea,”
we cannot be sure where in the order of events he really meant to
place it; and as R. Coggeshall’s information is derived from Hugh de
Neville, who was in close attendance on the king during the fight,
his narrative is probably correct.
[995] See details of the array in _Itin._, 416.
[996] R. Coggeshall, 44, 45; cf. _Itin._, _l.c._
[997] “Ferme quinquaginta milites,” _Itin._, 413; “milites
octoginta,” R. Coggeshall, 50.
[998] The _Itin._, 413, says fifteen, but R. Coggeshall, 46,
says six horses and one mule. Bohadin—after remarking “I was not
there, thank God!”—says some who were there told him the Christian
knights numbered only nine, or at most seventeen (337); he, or his
informants, doubtless reckoned as “knights” only those who were
horsed. According to the _Itin._, 420, Richard gained two more
horses, as soon as he entered the town, by killing their Turkish
riders.
[999] “Un hardi serjant e nobile, Henri le Tyois, el conroi Portoit
la baniere le roi,” _Est._, ll. 11432-4. “Serviens probissimus
Hernicus Teutonicus, regis signifer,” _Itin._, 415. “Rex ...
assumptis secum sex strenuis militibus cum regio vexillo,” R.
Coggeshall, 55.
[1000] _Itin._, 420. This writer reduces the king’s mounted followers
at this time to two, which of course is absurd.
[1001] R. Coggeshall, 46.
[1002] _Itin._, 420, 421.
[1003] _Ib._, 417.
[1004] R. Coggeshall, 47.
[1005] _Ib._; cf. _Itin._, 416, 417, and Bohadin, 337.
[1006] R. Coggeshall, 48.
[1007] _Ib._; cf. _Itin._, 417.
[1008] Bohadin, 337; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 64.
[1009] Ibn Alathyr, 65.
[1010] Bohadin, 337.
[1011] R. Coggeshall, 49.
[1012] _Itin._, 418; cf. _Est._, ll. 11510-32.
[1013] R. Coggeshall, 49-51.
[1014] _Itin._, 423.
[1015] Bohadin, 338.
[1016] _Itin._, 412. This seems to have been a not uncommon practice
of the Turks.
[1017] _Ib._, 425; R. Coggeshall, 51.
[1018] Bohadin, 336.
[1019] “Saturday, 26 Rajab” says Bohadin, 338, but 26 Rajab was a
Friday.
[1020] Bohadin, 338, 339.
[1021] Bohadin, 339-41.
[1022] _Est._, ll. 11725-49; _Itin._, 425-7.
[1023] _Itin._, 427; cf. R. Devizes, 75.
[1024] _Est._, ll. 11750-60; _Itin._, _l.c._
[1025] Bohadin, 341, 342.
[1026] “Houat,” Bohadin, 342. Stubbs, in a note to _Itin._, 428,
suggests this identification, which is rendered highly probable by
the mention in R. Devizes, 69, of Hubert as concerned in the making
of the truce.
[1027] Bohadin, 342-4.
[1028] Bohadin, 344.
[1029] _Ib._, 344-6. He says the truce was for three years and eight
months from Wednesday 22 Shaban = October 1. Ibn Alathyr (_Recueil_,
II. i. 65) says three years and eight months from September 1;
Imad-ed-Din (_apud_ Abu Shama, 78) says three years and three months,
without any date; R. Diceto, ii. 305, and W. Newburgh, lib. iv. c.
29, make the period three years, three months, three weeks, three
days and three hours from Easter 1193. Bohadin is unquestionably
the best authority on the matter, especially as the final proposals
on the Moslem side appear to have been actually written either by
his own hand, or by the hand of the writer—whoever this may have
been—who made the revised edition of his work, published with a
Latin translation by Dr. Schultens at Leyden; so at least we gather
from Schultens, 259—“_Conscripsi_ quae convenerant, _exaravique_
conditiones pacis.” The French version, which represents Bohadin’s
original text, has merely “_On_ rédigea,” etc.; so we are left in
doubt whether the first person in the Leyden version represents
Bohadin himself or his reviser.
Richard of Devizes (69-77) has a long and curious account of the
circumstances relating to the truce. According to him, the first
overtures were made and the preliminaries arranged by Hubert of
Salisbury and Henry of Champagne without the knowledge of King
Richard, and the matter was only referred to the king when it was
so far advanced that, sick and bewildered as he was, he could do
nothing but leave it in their hands and sanction their arrangements.
This in itself is not impossible, nor is it irreconcileable with
Bohadin’s narrative; but there are in Richard’s story details which
are certainly incorrect—_e. g._, he makes Hubert and Henry apply to
Safadin instead of Bedr-ed-Din, and introduces visits of Safadin in
person to the camp at Joppa and to the king himself, all of which are
unquestionably fictitious or imaginary.
[1030] _Est._, ll. 11801-26; _Itin._, 429, 430.
[1031] Bohadin, 348.
[1032] _Ib._, 349, 350; _Est._, ll. 11868-75; _Itin._, 432.
[1033] R. Devizes, 78.
[1034] Bohadin, 350.
[1035] _Est._, ll. 11835-8; _Itin._, 430.
[1036] _Est._, ll. 12257-70; _Itin._, 440.
[1037] _Itin._, 441; cf. _Est._, ll. 12271-2.
[1038] Rigord, 118.
[1039] Rigord (_l.c._), says “secundo vendidit”; R. Howden, iii.
306, when recording Guy’s death in 1195, says “cui Rex Angliae
vendiderat insulam Cypri.” But Roger himself says elsewhere (181),
that when Henry was chosen King of Jerusalem “rex Angliae dedit in
excambium regi Guidoni insulam de Cypre in vita sua tenendam.” Ralf
of Coggeshall, who also (36) places the transaction after Henry’s
election in April 1192, says, “Regi Guidoni concessit, accepto ejus
homagio”; and W. Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 29) says, “mera liberalitate
donavit.” The version given by all these latter writers can hardly
fail to be the correct one; it is inconceivable that Guy could have
had means for the purchase.
[1040] This in an inference from Rigord, 118, who seems to place the
whole transaction at this time.
[1041] R. Diceto, ii. 106; _Itin._, 441.
[1042] _Ll.cc_; R. Howden, iii. 185, says October 8.
[1043] Bohadin, 348.
[1044] _Eracle, Recueil, Hist. Occid._, ii. 189.
[1045] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.
[1046] R. Coggeshall, 53.
[1047] _Ann. Colon. Max._, Pertz, xvii. 796; cf. Ansbert, ed.
Dobrowsky, 115 (Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli). “Allein die
Glaubwürdigkeit dieser Zeugnisse unterliegt gegründeten Bedenken”;
Kellner, _Ueber die deutsche Gefangenschaft Richards I_, 44.
[1048] “Applicuit in insula de Cuverfu, et navigavit usque ad tres
galeas quas vidit ex opposito in Rumania,” R. Howden, iii. 185. Roger
dates the arrival at Corfu, “infra mensem post diem illum,” _i.
e._ the day on which Richard left Acre, October 9. R. Coggeshall,
whose information, being partly derived from the chaplain Anselm who
accompanied the king on his voyage, is probably more accurate, says
(53) that Richard had been six weeks at sea when he turned back to
Corfu; so the date would be about November 20. According to the same
writer (_l.c._) the pirate galleys numbered two, not three as Roger
says.
[1049] Twenty-one according to R. Howden, _l.c._ One of the party was
Anselm, who told the story to R. Coggeshall, _l.c._
[1050] R. Howden, _l.c._
[1051] Document, dated 1598, from the archives of Ragusa, “ex lib.
Div. Cancellariae n. 98,” in Farlati, _Illyricum Sacrum_, vi. 90.
[1052] Appendini, _Notizie istorico-critiche sulle antichita, etc.,
di Ragusa_, i. 272; Farlati, vi. 90.
[1053] “It is not Great Britain who will fail in keeping her
promises. Great Britain has known us ever since Richard received our
hospitality and built for us a most beautiful church on the spot
where our ancestors had saved him from shipwreck on his way back from
the Crusade,” said M. Vesnitch, the representative of Serbia, at a
great public meeting in Paris on January 27, 1916.
[1054] None of the authorities for Richard’s voyage mention more than
one landing after his departure from Corfu. “Accidit ut ventus, rupta
nave sua in qua ipse erat, duceret eam versus partes Histriae, ad
locum qui est inter Aquileiam et Venetiam, ubi rex Dei permissione
passus naufragium cum paucis evasit,” says the Emperor in a letter
to Philip of France (R. Howden, iii. 195). Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky,
114; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.) says, “Ad Polam, civitatem
Ystriae, ad litus fertur et applicare cogitur.” R. Diceto (ii. 106)
makes the voyage end “in Sclavonia”; R. Coggeshall (54), “in partes
Sclavoniae, ad quandam villam nomine Gazaram”; R. Howden (iii.
105) “prope Gazere apud Raguse.” This word _Gazere_, misunderstood
as intended to represent Zara, has puzzled commentators, but is
explained by Wilkinson (_Dalmatia and Montenegro_, i. 301) as being
a corruption of an Arabic word meaning “island”; that is, it really
stands here for Lacroma. The final landing was evidently not anywhere
in “Slavonic parts” but in Istria, as the German authorities say; and
of these the Emperor is the most likely to be correct.
[1055] The narrative which we are here following—that of Richard’s
chaplain and companion Anselm, as reported by R. Coggeshall,
53-5—calls this personage merely “Dominus provinciae illius, qui
nepos extitit Marchisii.” That he was the Count of Gorizia appears
from the Emperor’s letter in R. Howden, iii. 195.
[1056] R. Coggeshall, 54, 55.
[1057] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.
[1058] It comprised, besides Baldwin de Béthune and the king,
“Magister Philippus regis clericus, atque Anselmus capellanus qui
haec omnia nobis ut vidit et audivit retulit, et quidam fratres
Templi,” R. Coggeshall, 54; and also, as appears later (_ib._, 55),
some personal attendants of Richard’s.
[1059] Letter of Henry VI, in R. Howden, iii. 195.
[1060] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 104; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd.
cxl.
[1061] Letter of Henry VI, _l.c._
[1062] R. Coggeshall, 55. The name of the town, Freisach, and that
of the German lord, Frederic of Pettau, are not given by Ralf; they
are supplied from the Emperor’s letter, _l.c._ Ralf makes the final
halting-place and the scene of the capture Vienna itself: “ad quandam
villam nomine Ginanam in Austria prope Danubium”; but the German
accounts, including that of the Emperor, which must have been derived
from Leopold of Austria, make it a neighbouring village: “juxta Wenam
in villa viciniori, in domo despecta,” letter in R. Howden, _l.c._;
“in quoddam diversorium juxta Viennam civitatem,” Otto of S. Blaise
(Pertz, xx. 334); “circa Wiennam ... in vili hospitio,” Ansbert
(ed. Dobrowsky, 114, R. Howden, iii. cxl). Kellner (_Gefangenschaft
Richards I_, 29), calls the place “Erdberg, Dörfchen bei Wien”; but I
can find no authority for the name. Trivet, to whom he seems to refer
for it, says “in civitate Wienna” (ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 148).
[1063] R. Coggeshall, 56. R. Howden, iii, 186, says Richard was
captured asleep; according to Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 324),
he was roasting meat on a spit, thinking by this servile employment
to avoid recognition, and was betrayed by a splendid ring which he
had forgotten to remove from his finger. This account of the matter
has a somewhat characteristic air; but it may have been founded on a
confused version of Ralf’s story of the ring offered to Mainard of
Gorizia. W. Newburgh’s narrative of Richard’s adventures (lib. iv.
c. 31) seems to be based on the Emperor’s letter, which says nothing
about the circumstances of the capture; the details and speeches
added by William are obviously mere rhetoric of his own. The date
is given by R. Coggeshall as December 21, by R. Diceto (ii. 106) as
December 22.
[1064] _Ann. Marbac._, Pertz, xvii. 165; Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 112;
R. Howden, iii., introd. cxl.
[1065] R. Coggeshall, 56.
[1066] Letter in R. Howden, iii, 195.
[1067] _Ann. Magn. Reichensberg._, Pertz, xvii. 520.
[1068] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115; R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.
[1069] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.
[1070] Agreement in Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115-19, and Stubbs’s R.
Howden, iii. introd. cxli.-iii.
[1071] Kellner, _Gefangenschaft_, 39.
[1072] Rigord, 116; _Gesta Ric._, 192-9, 203, 204, 227-30.
[1073] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 78; for date see Kellner, 18, note 2.
Milan does not appear in Philip’s itinerary in _Gesta Ric._, unless
in the form of “Cassem Milan” (230), and this identification is
doubtful, as the name comes between “Monte Bardon” and “Furnos,” _i.
e._ Farinovo. Some of the other names, however, seem to be out of
geographical order.
[1074] This probably referred to Richard’s dealings with Saladin.
[1075] R. Howden, iii. 198, 199; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33. The
date of the assembly is from R. Diceto, ii. 106. The place was
probably Spire; Richard was there on Easter day and on the Tuesday in
Easter week (March 28 and 30), _Epp. Cantuar._, 362-4. The statement
of the Emperor’s poetical panegyrist, Peter of Eboli, that Richard
offered to clear himself by ordeal of battle, a proposal by which
Henry was so greatly impressed in his favour that he set him at
liberty (_Petr. Ansolini de Ebulo Carmen_, _apud_ Muratori, _Rer.
Ital. Scriptt._ xxxi. 142), is probably a misunderstanding or a
poetical embellishment of Richard’s offer to stand to right in the
court of his French overlord.
[1076] R. Diceto, ii. 106, 107.
[1077] Stubbs, note to R. Howden, iii. 210.
[1078] R. Coggeshall, 58. Ralf says Richard was imprisoned “primo
_Treviris_, deinde Warmatiae.” _Treviris_ here seems to mean
Triffels, as there is no other indication that Richard was ever at
Treves; we shall see that he was at Worms later. Ralf is perhaps the
best authority as to the character of Richard’s imprisonment, as he
probably heard about it from Anselm the chaplain, who may very likely
have been, for a time at least, one of the attendants imprisoned with
their sovereign. William of Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 37, lib. v. c. 31)
is less to be trusted on the subject. Two German chroniclers say that
Richard was kept “sub honorabili custodia” (_Ann. Aquicinct._, _Rer.
Gall. Scriptt._, xviii. 456), “in libera clausus custodia” (_Andr.
Marchian._, _ib._ 557); but the chief German historian of the time,
Otto of S. Blaise, says “Henricus [regem] Wormatiam asportari vinctum
ferroque onustum praecepit” (Pertz, xx. 324).
[1079] R. Howden, iii. 197, a letter which shows that Savaric was at
the Imperial court before February 28.
[1080] _Récits d’un ménéstrel de Reims_, 41-4.
[1081] R. Howden, iii. 198.
[1082] _Ib._, iii. 194.
[1083] _Gesta_, 230, 236.
[1084] _Ib._, 236. The actual “treaty of Messina” is not extant; all
we know about it is from Philip’s charter, dated March 1190 (_i.
e._ before March 25, 1191, the French year beginning on Lady Day),
proclaiming certain conditions on which he and Richard had made “a
firm peace.” This charter, in its existing form, contains no mention
of either Eu or Aumale, nor of any conditions about the restitution
of Aloysia or of her dower-lands. No original copy of it is known;
it is printed in _Fœdera_, I. i. 54 from a fragment of an English
Treasury Roll dating from the second half of the thirteenth century.
Powicke, _Loss of Normandy_, 126, 127.
[1085] _Gesta_, 236, 237.
[1086] R. Howden, iii. 204.
[1087] _Ib._, iii. 205.
[1088] “Imperator vero iratum animum ac ferocem erga regem diutius
conservans nullatenus eum in praesentia sua convocare vel alloqui
voluit.” R. Coggeshall, 58.
[1089] R. Coggeshall, 58.
[1090] French version in Leroux de Lincy, _Recueil de Chansons
Historiques_, i. 56-9, and Sismondi, _Literature of S. Europe_,
trans. Roscoe, i. 152 _et seq._; Provençal version in Raynouard,
_Choix de Poésies des Troubadours_, iv. 183 _et seq._
[1091] _I. e._ Philip of France.
[1092] “Mes compaignons cui j’amoie e cui j’aim, Ces dou Cahiul”
(“Chacu,” Sismondi) “e ces dou Porcherain” (“Percherain,” Sismondi).
Leroux de Lincy translates “Ceux de Cahors et ceux du Perche.”
Feeling doubtful about the identification, I have tried to turn the
difficulty by using a vague phrase and omitting the names altogether.
[1093] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33.
[1094] Gerv. Cant., i. 517.
[1095] He landed in England on April 20; _ib._, 516.
[1096] “Honeste circa ipsum Imperatorem moram facimus.”
[1097] Letter of Richard, in R. Howden, iii. 209, 210.
[1098] R. Howden, iii. 206.
[1099] Rigord, 123.
[1100] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 206; R. Coggeshall, 61, 62; Rigord,
123, 125, 126; _Chron. Rothomag., Rev. Gall. Scriptt._, xvii. 358;
_Ann. Aquicinct_, _ib._, xviii. 546. The dates are conflicting, and
Rigord’s chronology, in particular, is even more confused than usual
just here; the other writers, especially the English ones, are safer
guides.
[1101] “Misit nuncios ad Imperatorem cum infinita pecunia, rogans
attentius regem Angliae utpote hominem suum ei mitteret liberum, vel
diutius retineret incarceratum.” Gerv. Cant., i. 516.
[1102] Richard was there on May 26 and June 8; _Epp. Cant._, 364,
365; cf. Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.
[1103] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 37, says 24th; R. Howden, iii. 212, says
25th.
[1104] R. Howden, iii. 214; date, June, _Vita Alb. Leod._, Pertz,
xxv. 168.
[1105] “Totius Alemanniae generalis conventus magnates solos
comprehendens,” says R. Diceto, ii. 110, who dates it July 5; but R.
Howden, _l.c._, is obviously more accurate.
[1106] William Brewer and Baldwin de Béthune. These latter arrived on
June 28; R. Howden, _l.c._
[1107] R. Howden, iii. 214, 215.
[1108] R. Howden, iii. 215, 216.
[1109] John—whose restoration, however, was conditional; see R.
Howden, iii. 217, 218;—the count of Angoulême, who in 1192-3 had
stirred up another revolt in Aquitaine, invaded Poitou, and been
made prisoner by its seneschal; see _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192, and
R. Howden, iii. 194;—and the counts of Perche and Meulan, who had
supported John’s intrigues in Normandy.
[1110] Treaty in R. Howden, iii. 217-20.
[1111] Letters in R. Howden, iii. 226, 227.
[1112] _Ib._, 229.
[1113] R. Howden, iii. 228-32.
[1114] Letter of Archbishop Walter of Rouen in R. Diceto, ii. 112,
113.
[1115] R. Howden, iii. 233.
[1116] See Note V at end.
[1117] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 113.
[1118] R. Howden, iii. 233, 234.
[1119] R. Howden, iii. 234; cf. Gislebert of Mons, Pertz’s small
edition, 250. The duke of Suabia was the emperor’s brother; the
marquis of Montferrat was Boniface, brother and successor to Conrad.
To the duke of Louvain Richard also granted the lands in England
which had belonged to count Matthew of Boulogne, father of the
duke’s wife, “ipsique duci contra comitem Flandriae et Hanoniae
et marchisum Namurcensi auxilium promisit, ita quod saltem tantum
comiti Flandriae et Hanoniae guerram facerent quod comes nequaquam
domino regi Franciae auxilium ferre posset” (Gislebert, _l.c._). The
Flemish chronicler adds: “Conventiones tamen eorum in nulla parte
fuerunt observatae; nec mirum, cum rex Angliae nemini unquam vel
fidem vel pactum servasset, nec omnes illi nominati cum quibus foedus
firmaverat conventiones suas observare consuevissent” (_ib._, 250,
251). This is rather too sweeping, in view of the conduct of the
allies in after-years. One of them at least, Boniface of Montferrat,
received three hundred marks “de feodo suo” and ten marks as a
present from Richard in 1197 (Stapleton, _Norman Exchequer Rolls_,
ii. 301).
[1120] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 41.
[1121] R. Howden, iii. 235.
[1122] R. Coggeshall, 62.
[1123] “Circa horam tertiam recessit a portu de Swine, et in crastino
post horam diei nonam applicuit in Angliam apud Sandicum portum, diei
dominica tertio idus Martii”; _i. e._ he left Swine on Saturday March
12, and reached Sandwich on Sunday the 13th, R. Howden, iii. 235. R.
Diceto, ii. 114, makes it a week later, Sunday March 20; but that
this is wrong is clear from Gervase of Canterbury, i. 524, where we
are told that Richard was received at Canterbury on the 13th, having
landed at Sandwich on the 12th. Ralf of Coggeshall, 62, says he
landed “secunda hora diei,” on the Sunday after S. Gregory’s day, _i.
e._ on March 13.
[1124] R. Diceto, ii. 114; cf. R. Coggeshall, 63.
[1125] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.
[1126] R. Coggeshall, 63.
[1127] It was seemingly on the march to Nottingham that, according to
a marginal note in two MSS. of Ralf of Coggeshall, “Robertus Brito a
rege captus, jussit ut fame in carcere interiret” (63). I have failed
to discover who this man was, or what he had done to incur such a
doom.
[1128] R. Howden, iii. 237-9.
[1129] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.
[1130] R. Howden, iii. 239.
[1131] _Hist. G. le. Mar._, ll. 10236-64.
[1132] R. Howden, iii. 240; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 114.
[1133] R. Coggeshall, 63.
[1134] R. Howden, iii. 240, 241.
[1135] For details see R. Howden, _l.c._, 241.
[1136] _Ib._
[1137] R. Howden, iii. 242, 243, 245.
[1138] _Ib._, 247, 248.
[1139] “Ut regnum innovaret.” Gerv. Cant., i. 524.
[1140] Gerv. Cant., i. 524, 525.
[1141] _Ib._, 524-6; cf. R. Howden, iii. 247, 248.
[1142] Gerv. Cant., 525.
[1143] “Tantaque solemnitas facta est _propter praecedentis captionis
contumeliam_,” _ib._, 526, “In octavis Paschae Wintoniae regni
diademate fulgidus, _detersa captivitatis ignominia_, quasi rex novus
apparuit,” W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42. “Rex Ricardus ... consilio
procerum suorum, _licet aliquantulum_ renitens, coronatus est,” R.
Coggeshall, 64. It is hard to conceive what “ignominy” or “contumely”
could be thought to attach to the mere fact of Richard’s captivity,
or why Richard should have been “reluctant” to revive a time-honoured
custom which would surely have appealed with double force to his
well-known love of pomp and splendour and of grand Church services,
unless its revival was urged upon him for some special reason whose
cogency he was unwilling to admit. On the other hand, it is curious
that R. Diceto (ii. 114) says nothing about this crown-wearing beyond
the bare statement that the king “in octavis Paschae regni diadema
suscepit de manibus Huberti Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi.”
[1144] R. Howden, iii. 249, 250.
[1145] R. Howden, iii. 251. R. Diceto, ii. 114, and Gerv. Cant., i.
527, give the same date.
[1146] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10431-52.
[1147] Cf. Rigord, 127, R. Diceto, ii. 115, with date Whitsun Eve
(May 27), and R. Howden, iii. 252.
[1148] Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10,353-518, R. Howden, Rigord,
_ll.cc._, and R. Diceto, ii. 115, 116.
[1149] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10491-550.
[1150] _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192; under this year all the events of
1192-5 are lumped together in this Chronicle.
[1151] R. Howden, iii. 252.
[1152] R. Diceto, ii. 116.
[1153] _Ib._, ii. 117; R. Howden and _Chron. S. Alb._, _ll.cc._
[1154] R. Howden, iii. 252, 253.
[1155] Rigord, 127; _Chron. Turon._, a. 1194, with date June 11.
This spoliation was only temporary; on November 11 of the same year
Richard, at Alençon, restored into the hands of the legate all that
he had taken from the canons and other clerks of S. Martin at Tours.
R. Diceto, ii. 122.
[1156] R. Diceto, ii. 117; R. Howden, iii. 252.
[1157] R. Diceto, _l.c._
[1158] _Ib._; R. Howden, _l.c._, giving date; _Chron. S. Alb._, a.
1192.
[1159] R. Howden, iii. 253; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 116.
[1160] R. Howden, iii. 253, 254; cf. Rigord, 127, who gives the date,
June 14.
[1161] R. Howden, iii. 254, 255.
[1162] Cf. _ib._, iii. 255, 256; R. Diceto, ii. 117; W. Newb., lib.
v. c. 2; Rigord, 129, and _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192. William the
Breton’s description of the captured documents (_Philippis_, lib.
iv. ll. 530-68) is surely a poetical exaggeration. The date is from
R. Diceto, who says the affair took place thirty-seven days after
Philip’s retirement from Verneuil.
[1163] R. Howden, iii. 256.
[1164] Peter was made seneschal between February 12 and May 5, 1190;
see Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 263-5.
[1165] _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192.
[1166] Elias V, 1166-1204.
[1167] R. Howden, iii. 194; cf. R. Devizes, 55.
[1168] Teulet, _Layettes du Trésor des Chartes_, i. 176.
[1169] R. Diceto, ii. 117.
[1170] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 257. Cf. W. Newb., lib. v. c. 2.
[1171] R. Diceto, ii. 118, 119.
[1172] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 257-60.
[1173] See Note VI at end.
[1174] The ordinance concerning tourneys; dated “apud Villam
Episcopi,” _Fœdera_, I. i. 65.
[1175] R. Howden, iii. 259.
[1176] Madox, _Hist. Exchequer_, i. 637, 638.
[1177] See Note VI at end.
[1178] R. Diceto, ii. 119.
[1179] R. Howden, iii. 267.
[1180] _Fœdera_, I. i. 65; also in Appendix to Preface to R. Diceto,
ii. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.
[1181] R. Howden, iii. 288-90.
[1182] W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17.
[1183] R. Howden, iii. 290.
[1184] R. Howden, iii. 276.
[1185] R. Diceto, ii. 121.
[1186] R. Howden, iii. 283. Roger places the story “eodem anno”
between two events of which one is dated January and the other
February 1195.
[1187] R. Howden, iii. 300, 301.
[1188] _Ib._, 302, 303.
[1189] R. Howden, iii. 301; W. Newb., lib. v. c. 15; cf. Rigord, 130,
131. The two latter give the date “mense Julio.”
[1190] _Fœdera_, I. i. 66.
[1191] R. Howden, iii. 303, 304.
[1192] _Ib._, iii. 304.
[1193] Rigord, 131. Arques had been in Philip’s hands since July
1193, when it was pledged to him and placed under the control of the
archbishop of Reims by the treaty which William of Ely made during
Richard’s captivity.
[1194] _Ib._; R. Howden, iii. 304.
[1195] Rigord, 131, 132.
[1196] R. Howden, iii. 305.
[1197] Rigord, 132.
[1198] W. Newb., lib. v. c. 15.
[1199] R. Howden, _l.c._; cf. W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17.
[1200] W. Newb., _l.c._
[1201] Rigord, 132.
[1202] Cf. Rigord, 132, 133, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17, and R. Howden,
iii. 305. The last-named gives the date of the meeting at Issoudun as
December 9; Rigord and William make it December 5, and are confirmed
by Delisle’s _Catal. des Actes de Ph. Aug._, nos. 462-464.
[1203] Treaty in _Fœdera_, I. i. 66; cf. R. Howden, iv. 3, W. Newb.,
lib. v. c. 18, Rigord, 133, and Delisle, _Catal._, nos. 463, 464.
[1204] R. Howden, iv. 3, 4.
[1205] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 135-137; cf. R. Howden, _l.c._
[1206] Letter in Appendix to Preface to R. Diceto, ii. lxxix., lxxx.;
dated April 15. The context shows the year to be 1196.
[1207] R. Howden, iv. 7.
[1208] Cf. R. Howden, _l.c._ Gerv. Cant., i. 532, and W. Newb., lib.
v. c. 18.
[1209] R. Howden and Gerv. Cant., _ll.cc._
[1210] W. Armor. _Philippis_, lib. v. vv. 147-60.
[1211] W. Newb. and R. Howden, _ll.cc._; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v.
vv. 161-65.
[1212] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 74-96; cf. Rigord, 135, who
dates the latter event “brevi temporis elapso spatio” after an event
which occurred in June.
[1213] R. Howden, iv. 4, 5.
[1214] Rigord, 135, 136; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 168-242,
254-69. There is documentary evidence of Philip’s presence at Aumale
in July 1196; Delisle, _Catal._, no. 502. Gervase of Canterbury, i.
532, has confused the chronology.
[1215] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. v. 269.
[1216] Cf. _Mag. Vita S. Hugonis_, 248-51, and R. Howden, iv. 40.
[1217] Letter of Walter in R. Diceto, ii. 149, 150; cf. R. Howden,
iv. 14, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 28, R. Coggeshall, 70, and Gerv. Cant.,
i. 544.
[1218] “Precipitans sevus alta de rupe deorsum Littore Sequanio,
muros ubi _postea_ rupis Gaillarde struxit,” W. Armor., _Phil._, lib.
v. vv. 311-13. This dates the story 1196-7.
[1219] Such is the story as told by Philip’s poet-historiographer,
W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 276-324. Roger of Howden, iv. 54,
tells it in less detail under the year 1198, without specifying its
occasion; according to him Philip was the originator of this “novum
genus grassandi in populo,” “and thus provoked the king of England,
though unwilling, to a like impious act.”
[1220] R. Howden, iv. 18, 19; cf. letters of Walter and Richard in R.
Diceto, ii. 153-8.
[1221] Letter in _Fœdera_, I. i. 71, dated “apud Bellum Castellum de
Rupe,” July 11, 1198.
[1222] J. Brompton, Twysden, _X. Scriptt._, col. 1276.
[1223] Delisle, _Catal._, nos. 497, 499.
[1224] Rigord, 137; _Fœdera_, I., i. 67, 68.
[1225] R. Howden, iv. 19.
[1226] R. Howden, iv. 7.
[1227] _Ib._, 13.
[1228] D’Achéry, _Spicilegium_, vii. 343; cf. Vaissète, _Hist. de
Languedoc_ (new ed.), vi. 173, 179.
[1229] R. Diceto, ii. 152, giving date April 15; cf. R. Howden, iv.
19 and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 31.
[1230] R. Diceto, _l.c._, R. Howden iv. 16, Gerv. Cant. i. 544, W.
Newb., _l.c._ The first two give the day, May 19; Roger makes the
year 1196, but the other three all distinctly place the event in 1197.
[1231] R. Howden, iv. 20.
[1232] Cf. _ib._, iv. 20 and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 32. Gerv. Cant.,
_l.c._ gives the date of Philip’s release “post Assumptionem B.
Mariae.”
[1233] Gervase, i. 544, who alone mentions Hubert, dates the
conference September 8; R. Howden, iv. 20, 21, dates it September 17.
The former makes the truce start from Christmas, the latter (p. 24)
from S. Hilary’s day (1198). This second version seems to be the one
implied by W. Newb., lib. v. c. 32, who says that “mense Septembri”
the kings made “treuiam unius anni et quatuor mensium.”
[1234] “Ita tamen ut qui tenet teneat donec de medio fiat,” says
Gervase, _l.c._
[1235] R. Howden, iv. 21.
[1236] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._
[1237] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.
[1238] Charter, dated October 16, 1197, in R. Diceto, ii. 153-6.
[1239] Letter of Celestine, in Magn. Reichersp., Pertz., xvii. 524.
[1240] R. Howden, iv. 37.
[1241] _Ib._, 31.
[1242] Gerv. Cant., i. 545.
[1243] R. Howden, iv. 37, 38.
[1244] R. Diceto, ii. 163.
[1245] Gerv. Cant., i. 545.
[1246] Delisle, _Catal._, no. 535; cf. Rigord, 143.
[1247] R. Howden, iv. 55.
[1248] _Ib._, 59.
[1249] _Ib._, 54.
[1250] R. Howden, iv. 55; R. Diceto, ii. 163, giving date.
[1251] Cf. Richard’s letter, dated Dangu, September 30, in R. Howden,
iv. 58, 59, with Roger’s own account, _ib._, 55, 56, 59, 60, R.
Diceto, ii. 164, and Rigord, 141, 142.
[1252] Letter in R. Howden, iv. 58, 59.
[1253] “Saviez qu’à Chinon Non a argent ni denier.” Leroux de Lincy,
_Rec. de Chansons Historiques_, i. 65-7.
[1254] R. Howden, iv. 66; R. Coggeshall, 93; _Ann. Waverley_, a.
1198; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, ii. 451.
[1255] Wyon, _Great Seals_, 19. The last known grant under the old
seal is dated April 1, 1198; _ib._, 149.
[1256] The last confirmation is dated April 5, 1199; Round, _Feudal
England_, 542.
[1257] R. Howden, iv. 60; cf. Rigord, 142.
[1258] R. Howden, iv. 78. The latter place was afterwards called Le
Goulet.
[1259] “In costamento campionum Regis qui fuerunt ducti in Insulam de
Andeleia contra Regem Francie xxx libras.” Roll of A.D. 1198, _Rot.
Scacc. Norm._, ii. 481.
[1260] R. Howden, iv. 61, 68.
[1261] _Ib._, 80; Rigord, 144; letters of Innocent in _Fœdera_, I, i.
73. See also the long account of this last conference in _Hist. G. le
Mar._, ll. 11399-726.
[1262] Rigord, _l.c._
[1263] R. Howden, iv. 80, 81.
[1264] Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 259.
[1265] Otto seems to have occasionally styled himself duke of
Aquitaine but never in his uncle’s presence. Richard, _Comtes_, ii,
300, 301, 312, 313.
[1266] _Ib._, 300, 301.
[1267] R. Howden, iii. 308.
[1268] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 94, and _Mag. Vita S. Hugonis_, 280.
[1269] Cf. Rigord’s description, 144, with the story of the discovery
in W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 492-9. I suppose _census_ in l.
498—“Census absconsos in arato repperit agro”—stands for coins. As
to the figures and the “table,” M. Richard (_Comtes_, ii. 322 note)
suggests that the treasure was a gilded shield—the “table” being the
central knob or _umbo_, with the figures arranged round it—buried for
safety in the time of the Bagaudes or of the Barbarian invasion, and
that Châlus was chosen as a safe hiding-place because “Châlus, c’est
le _castrum luci_, le château du luc, autrement dit du bois sacré.”
[1270] Of La Boissière, according to G. Guiart, _Branche des Royaux
Lignages_, l. 2601.
[1271] Cf. W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 499-508; Rigord, _l.c._;
and R. Howden, iv. 82, 83.
[1272] R. Howden, iv. 82.
[1273] Cf. _ib._, with R. Coggeshall, 94, and W. Armor., _Phil._,
lib. v. vv. 509-12. Gervase of Canterbury, i. 593, calls the place
“Nantrun”; a mistake which is explained by a “Fragmentum aliunde
assutum” to the chronicle of Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, _Thesaur._,
ii. 342, where we are told that Richard while lying sick before
Châlus sent some of his troops to besiege two other castles in the
Limousin, Nontron and Montagut.
[1274] Rigord, _l.c._
[1275] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 513-19.
[1276] Addition to Geoff. Vigeois, 342. W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v.,
v. 529, says there were six knights and nine “clientes.”
[1277] R. Coggeshall, 94, 95.
[1278] R. Howden, iv. 82.
[1279] R. Coggeshall, 95.
[1280] W. Arm., _Phil._, lib. v, vv. 572-6; cf. R. Howden, iv. 82.
[1281] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._; cf. R. Howden, _l.c._; Gerv. Cant., i.
592, and W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. v. 589.
[1282] R. Howden, iv. 82.
[1283] R. Coggeshall, 95; cf. R. Howden, iv. 83.
[1284] “Rege ... præcepta _medicorum_ non curante.” R. Coggeshall,
_l.c._
[1285] R. Coggeshall, 95, 96; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 600-5.
[1286] R. Howden, _l.c._
[1287] Addition to G. Vigeois, 342.
[1288] R. Coggeshall, 96.
[1289] R. Howden, iv. 83.
[1290] R. Howden, iv. 83; cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 593, and R. Coggeshall,
96. Howden gives the name of Richard’s slayer as Bertrand de Gourdon;
in the MSS. of W. Armor., _Phil._ (lib. v. v. 587), it appears in
different forms, which M. Delaborde takes to be misreadings of
“Gurdo.” Gervase of Canterbury, i. 592, calls the man “juvenis
quidem Johannes Sabraz agnomine”; R. Diceto, ii. 166, calls him
“Petrus Basilii,” and is supported by the anonymous continuator of G.
Vigeois, 342, who says: “Unus de militibus” [_i. e._ the two knights
in the castle] “vocatus Petrus Bru, alter Petrus Basilii, de quo
dicitur quod sagittam cum arbalista tractam emisit qua percussus rex
intra duodecimam diem vitam finivit.”
[1291] R. Coggeshall, 96.
[1292] Charter of Eleanor—summarized in Round’s _Calendar of
Documents relating to France_, i. 472—to the abbey of S. Mary at
Torpenay, to which she grants an endowment “for the welfare of the
soul of her dearest son Richard, king of England, and for the yearly
celebration of his anniversary,” “because her beloved [Luke, abbot
of Torpenay,] was present with her at the illness and funeral of her
dearest son the king, and laboured above all others at his obsequies.”
[1293] R. Howden, iv. 84.
[1294] R. Coggeshall, 96. “Septima hora noctis,” says the continuator
of G. Vigeois, 342. R. Coggeshall gives the day as April 7, but his
own next words—“scilicet undecimo die a vulnere sibi illato”—show
this to be an error for April 6, the date given by the best English
authorities, R. Diceto, ii. 166, Gerv. Cant., i. 593, and R. Howden,
_l.c._, and also by the Cont. G. Vigeois, _l.c._
[1295] _Ann. Winton_, a. 1199.
[1296] _Magna Vita S. Hugonis_, 286.
[1297] Gerv. Cant., i. 593.
[1298] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 611-17.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg 24: ‘contract of mariage’ replaced by ‘contract of marriage’.
Pg 40: ‘out of Augoulême’ replaced by ‘out of Angoulême’.
Pg 92: ‘They came foward’ replaced by ‘They came forward’.
Pg 167: ‘king had deen’ replaced by ‘king had been’.
Pg 169: ‘two thousand kinghts’ replaced by ‘two thousand knights’.
Pg 169: ‘An August 2’ replaced by ‘On August 2’.
Pg 312: ‘to the developement’ replaced by ‘to the development’.
Pg 323: ‘the appointed term’ replaced by ‘the appointed time’.
Pg 331: ‘Gefangenshaft’ replaced by ‘Gefangenschaft’.
Pg 348: ‘slayer, 832’ replaced by ‘slayer, 328’.
Footnote [41]: ‘was a Proven al’ replaced by ‘was a Provençal’.
Footnote [43]: ‘Geoff. Vi eois’ replaced by ‘Geoff. Vigeois’.
Footnote [113]: ‘Gir. Camb.’ replaced by ‘Gir. Cambr.’.
Footnote [120]: ‘Gir. Camb.’ replaced by ‘Gir. Cambr.’.
Footnote [134]: ‘this pasaage is’ replaced by ‘this passage is’.
Footnote [372]: ‘seems to hav’ replaced by ‘seems to have’.
Footnote [458]: ‘[1190]’ replaced by ‘(1190)’;
Footnote [1233]: ‘[1198]’ replaced by ‘(1198)’ to avoid confusion
with Footnote numbering.