heir of its ancient rulers for the king of the French. Philip’s next
undertaking, the conquest of Aquitaine, was likely to be considerably
facilitated by the fact that there was no longer a third person who
could claim to stand between him and his rival as lawful lady of the
land; for Eleanor had died on April 1.[451] In the middle of August
Philip marched upon Poitou. Robert of Turnham, John’s seneschal there,
did what he could for its defence; but he was powerless against the
indifference of the people and the active hostility of the Lusignans
and William des Roches;[452] and in a few weeks the whole county,
except La Rochelle, Niort, and Thouars, had submitted to the French
king.[453] There, however, Philip’s progress ended. He could not touch
the county of Angoulême, for it belonged not to John, but to John’s
wife; while his very successes turned Gascony against him, for the
Gascons were quick to perceive how much greater would be their chances
of practical independence under a king who would henceforth be parted
from them by the whole width of the Bay of Biscay, than under one whose
territories now stretched without a break from the Channel to their
own border. Nor had John failed to recognize that in this quarter
lay his best hope--at the moment indeed his only hope--of checking
Philip’s advance. He at once devoted twenty-eight thousand marks of
the treasure which he was gathering in England to the hire of thirty
thousand soldiers, who were to be enrolled for his service in Gascony
by one Moreve, a brother of the archbishop of Bordeaux, in readiness
to join the forces of the king himself whenever he should land on
their coast.[454] From Poitiers, therefore, Philip returned to his own
dominions, and no further military movement on either side was made
throughout the winter.
[Sidenote: 1205]
In the middle of January 1205 John called the bishops and barons of
England to a council in London.[455] His nominal reason for so doing
was that he feared Philip might attempt an invasion of England, and
desired to concert measures for its defence; but it is clear that what
he really dreaded and sought to guard against was not invasion, but
treason. The precautions which he induced the council to support him in
taking against the imaginary danger were, if insufficient to save him
from the real one, at least as good a safeguard as could be contrived
against it at the moment. The oath of fealty to the king was taken anew
by all present, and afterwards re-administered throughout the country.
“It was also decreed that, for the general defence of the realm and
for the preservation of peace, a _commune_ should be made throughout
the kingdom, and that all men, from the greatest to the least, who
were over twelve years of age, should swear to keep it firmly.” The
ordinance to which they swore established constables in every shire;
and in every hundred, city, and group of lesser townships, subordinate
constables who were to lead the men of their respective “communes”
to the muster whenever they were summoned by the chief constables,
whose orders these local levies were to obey “for the defence of the
realm and the preservation of peace against foreigners or against
any other disturbers of the same”; and whosoever should neglect the
summons was to be held guilty of high treason.[456] At the beginning
of February John issued letters patent to the bailiffs of the east and
south coast, giving orders that no ship or boat should be allowed to
issue from or pass by the harbours under their jurisdiction, unless by
special licence from him.[457] Besides the obvious purpose of hindering
treasonable communications with his enemies on the continent, this
order had probably another object; the vessels thus detained were most
likely appropriated to the king’s service and made to form part of a
fleet which he was gathering from various quarters[458] throughout the
next two months. The want of confidence between king and barons was
openly revealed in a council at Oxford, March 27 to 29; the barons
made oath to John “that they would render him due obedience,” but John
was first “compelled to swear that he would by their counsel maintain
the rights of the kingdom inviolate, to the utmost of his power.”[459]
On Palm Sunday, April 3, John issued letters patent from Winchester,
ordering that in all the shires of England every nine knights should
“find” a tenth, and that the knights thus provided should come to meet
him in London three weeks after Easter (that is, on May 1), “ready to
go in his service where he should bid them, and to be in his service
in defence of the realm as much as might be needful.”[460] The muster
seems, however, to have been postponed, possibly to await the result of
an attempt which the king had been making in the field of diplomacy,
under somewhat peculiar circumstances.
Of all John’s ministers, the one whom he most disliked and mistrusted
was the one whose constitutional position made him absolutely
irremoveable from the royal counsels--the archbishop of Canterbury,
Hubert Walter. That John’s suspicions of Hubert’s loyalty were unjust
there can be no doubt; but there are not wanting indications that
Hubert, whose temper was extremely masterful, and who for the six
years preceding John’s accession to the throne had governed England
for Richard practically at his own sole discretion, was inclined to
press his views of policy upon Richard’s younger brother in a fashion
more dictatorial than deferential, and to magnify his own office
as chief adviser of the Crown, and his personal capabilities as a
statesman and a diplomatist, with more emphasis than tact. Hubert had
on several occasions tried to act as mediator between John and Philip,
and his mediation had failed. In Lent 1205 John, while pushing on
his military preparations in England, resolved to set on foot a new
diplomatic negotiation with France which seems to have had a twofold
object--first, to keep Philip occupied so as to hinder him, at least
for a short time, from proceeding against the few fortresses north of
the Dordogne which still held out for their Angevin lord;[461] and
secondly, to make game of the archbishop of Canterbury. This latter
object was to be attained by keeping the project a secret from Hubert,
and carrying on the negotiations not only without his assistance or
advice, but even without his knowledge. The envoys whom John selected
for this mission were his vice-chancellor, Hugh of Wells, and Earl
William the Marshal. Apparently it was given out that their journey
to France was on business of their own; an assertion which in the
Marshal’s case was true, though not the whole truth. When John had
communicated to them his private instructions, William spoke: “Now,
sire, listen to me. I am not sure of obtaining peace; and you see that
my term of truce for my Norman land is nearly expired. Unless I do
homage for it to the French king, I shall lose it; for I see no hope
of recovering it otherwise. What am I to do?” “Save it for my service
by doing the homage,” answered John. “I know you are too loyal to
withdraw your heart’s homage from me, come what may, and that the more
you possess to serve me with, the better will be your service.”[462]
He seems to have given--though scarcely with equal willingness--a like
permission to some of his other vassals who were in the same plight as
the Marshal,[463] and who may perhaps have been allowed to accompany
the latter partly for the sake of still further obscuring the main
object of his mission.
The Marshal and the vice-chancellor found the French king at Compiègne,
and communicated to him their errand from John. Philip seemed disposed
to entertain John’s proposals--we are not told what they were--and
promised to give them an answer a week later at Anet.[464] Meanwhile
he reminded the Marshal that the time of their “covenant” was nearly
up, adding, “You may find it the worse for you if you do not at once
do me homage.” The Marshal assented and performed the homage then
and there, apparently regarding it as a mere form necessary for the
redemption of his plighted word, but destined to be rendered void by
the peace which he trusted to conclude between the two sovereigns in
a few days. By this time, however, Archbishop Hubert had discovered
the fact of the secret negotiations, and was extremely wroth that the
king should have “plotted such a plot” without consulting him. He
therefore sent a certain Ralf of Ardenne to tell the count of Boulogne
that the two English envoys had no power to conclude a treaty. Boulogne
at once communicated this information to Philip, and when the meeting
at Anet took place, the taunt was flung in the Marshal’s face, and
the negotiations were broken off. Ralf of Ardenne had already hurried
back to England and told John that the Marshal had done homage and
fealty to the French king and made alliance with the latter against
his own sovereign. When the unlucky envoys came home, they met with a
sorry greeting. John at once charged the Marshal with having, “against
him and for his damage,” sworn allegiance to his enemy of France. The
Marshal denied the charge, and asserted that he had done only what
John had given him leave to do. On this John, in his rage, practically
denied his own words, and declared that “his barons and his men” should
judge between him and the Marshal--a judgement which William retorted
that he was quite ready to face.[465]
The fleet and the host were finally summoned to assemble at Portsmouth
at Whitsuntide.[466] The land forces had probably received some
increase by means of an order issued by the king on April 15 that, “for
the good of his mother’s soul,” all prisoners, except those charged
with treason, should be set at liberty.[467] No doubt every prisoner
capable of bearing arms was, as he issued from confinement, made to
take the oath of allegiance and enrolled for military service under the
constable of his district. On the Tuesday in Whitsun week (May 31) John
arrived at Porchester; there he stayed ten days, on the last five of
which he made daily excursions to Portsmouth,[468] probably to watch
the gathering of the fleet in its harbour.
It is doubtful how far the troops were aware of the king’s real
purpose in calling them together. The whole country was in a state of
excitement, hourly expecting an invasion. It was reported that the duke
of Louvain, in return for the French king’s good offices in recovering
for him from the count of Boulogne the share of the revenues of the
latter county to which he was entitled in right of his wife, had done
homage to Philip, and that the duke and the count had sworn in Philip’s
presence to be ready, each at the other’s call, to proceed to England
with all their forces and reclaim from John at the sword’s point the
English lands of which their wives--the grand-daughters of King Stephen
and Maud of Boulogne--had been disinherited by Henry II.; whereupon
Philip had sworn that he himself would follow them with his host
within a month after their landing in England.[469] John, in calling
his people to arms, seems to have purposely expressed the object of
the armament in general terms--“for the defence of the realm”--“for
the king’s service”[470]; terms which did not necessarily imply that
he wanted his men to do anything more than stand on the defensive,
ready to meet the expected invasion. He probably suspected that had
he at the outset demanded more than this, he would have met with a
flat refusal in certain quarters; and the issue proved the suspicion
to be correct. The rank and file of the host, indeed, were ready and
willing not only for defence but for defiance, eager to carry the war
into the enemy’s country before the enemy could set foot in their own.
To them John, at this stage of his career, was still the “king of the
English,” who had lost his continental possessions through the wiles
of his foreign enemies and the disloyalty of his “French” subjects,
and whom they, his faithful Englishmen, would gladly help to win those
possessions back again. The heads of the baronage, however, and some at
least of the innermost circle of the royal councillors, were of another
mind. Those of the greater barons who had deserted or betrayed him in
Normandy probably saw, or thought they saw, the possibility of serving
two masters, one for their continental lands and the other for their
English lands, and of profiting by this division of service to make
themselves practically independent of both masters alike. This, indeed,
was not a motive which could sway such a noble soul as William the
Marshal; nor could it influence Hubert Walter, to whom the continuance
or the severance of the connexion between England and the rest of the
Angevin dominions made, either as an individual or as archbishop,
no difference at all. Yet when the critical moment came, these two
men, who a few weeks before had been in political as well as personal
opposition to each other, forgot their rivalry and united all their
influence to defeat the king’s project of an expedition over sea.
On one of those days of waiting at Porchester, while the host was
gradually assembling, John, seated on the shore, with his court around
him, called the Marshal to his presence and renewed his demand for
“judgement” on the question of William’s alleged treason. William
quietly repeated his former answer, that he had only acted upon the
king’s own orders. “I deny it,” again said John. “You will gain nothing
in the end; but I will bide my time; and meanwhile I will have you
come with me to Poitou and fight for the recovery of my heritage
against the king of France, to whom you have done homage.” The Marshal
remonstrated; he could not fight against a man to whom he had done
homage. On this John declared his treason to be manifest, and appealed
to the judgement of the barons present. William faced them boldly,
pointed to his own forehead, and said: “Sirs, look at me, for, by my
faith! I am this day an example for you all. You hear what the king
says; and what he proposes to do to me, that, and more also, will he
do to every one of you, if he can get the upper hand.” The enraged
king at these words called for instant judgement upon the speaker; but
the barons “looked at each other and drew back.” “By God’s teeth!”
swore John, “I see plainly that not one of my barons is with me in
this; I must take counsel with my bachelors about this matter which
is beginning to look so ugly”; and he withdrew to another place.
The barons seemingly followed him, as did the “bachelors,” and the
Marshal was left alone, save for two personal followers of his own.
The bachelors as a body, when John appealed to them, gave it as their
opinion that there could be no essoign for failing to serve the king
on such an occasion as the present; but one of them, named Baldwin,
added that there was in the whole assembly no man worthy to judge such
a good knight as the Marshal, nor bold enough to undertake the proof
(by ordeal of battle) of the charge brought against him by the king;
and Baldwin’s remark “was pleasing to many.” Finding that neither baron
nor knight would challenge the Marshal for him, John ended the scene
by going to dinner; and after some further ineffectual endeavours to
obtain a champion he let the matter drop, and began once more to treat
the Marshal with civility, if not cordiality.[471]
By June 9 the tale of men and ships was complete. It was a splendid
array; never before, folk said, had there come together a greater host
of brave fighting men, “all ready and willing to go with the king over
sea,” nor had there ever been assembled in any English harbour so
large a number of ships equipped for the crossing.[472] To each of the
leaders of the host was assigned, by the king’s orders, a vessel or a
number of vessels sufficient for the transport of his following. Each
vessel had received her lading of arms and provisions, and only the
troops remained to be embarked, when the archbishop of Canterbury and
the Earl Marshal went to the king and “used every possible argument
to dissuade him from crossing. They represented what great mischief
might arise from his going over sea;--how perilous it would be for him
to thrust himself among so many battalions of enemies, when he had no
safe place of refuge in the transmarine lands;--how the French king,
being now master of nearly all his territories, could bring against him
a force far outnumbering the English host;--how great was the danger
of putting himself into the hands of the false and fickle Poitevins,
whose wont was to be always plotting some treachery against their
lords;--how the count of Boulogne and his confederates would speedily
invade England if they heard that its chief men and its brave army
were away;--and how it was much to be feared that, while endeavouring
to regain his lost dominions, he might lose those which remained to
him, especially as he had no heir whom he could leave behind him to
take up the reins of government in case any misfortune should befall
his own person in the lands beyond the sea. And when he could not be
moved by these and other like arguments, they (the archbishop and the
Marshal) fell down before him and clasped his knees to restrain him
from leaving them, declaring that of a surety, if he would not yield to
their prayers, they would detain him by force, lest by his departure
the whole kingdom should be brought to confusion.” Such opposition as
this, from two such men, implied a great deal more than is expressed
in their words as reported by Ralph of Coggeshall. John saw at once
that his six months of elaborate preparation had been wasted, and that
his hopes were ruined. “Weeping and crying” with shame and grief, he
passionately demanded what, then, did the archbishop advise as best
to be done for the realm and for the king’s honour, as well as for
the supporters who were looking for him to join them beyond the sea?
After some consultation, his counsellors agreed that a force of picked
knights should be sent, under the command of some English noble, to
the help of John’s continental friends. All the rest of the host were
bidden to return to their homes.
Bitter was the disappointment and vehement the indignation of the
troops, especially the sailors, and loud and deep were the curses which
they hurled at the ministers whose “detestable counsel” had thwarted
the aspirations and shattered the hopes of king and people alike.[473]
The ministers hurried the unwilling king away to Winchester (June 11);
but next day he made his way back to Portsmouth, went on board a ship
with a few comrades, and crossed into the Isle of Wight, probably
hoping that when he was found to have actually set forth, the sailors
and the troops would compel the barons to follow, or intending to
throw himself alone, if need were, upon the honour of his Aquitanian
adherents. At the end of two days, however, his companions persuaded
him to abandon this desperate venture, and on June 15 he landed at
Studland near Wareham.[474] His first act on landing was to claim “an
infinite sum of money” from the earls, barons, prelates and knights,
on the ground that they “had refused to follow him over sea for the
recovery of his lost heritage.”[475] In so far as this exaction fell
upon the shire-levies and the country knights, it was unjust, for the
majority of these were clearly in sympathy with the king, and as eager
for the expedition as he was himself. But it was impossible for him, in
the actual circumstances, to distinguish between the willing and the
unwilling; and there can be little doubt that so far as the barons were
concerned, his assertion was practically correct. The gathering of the
mightiest armament that had ever been seen in England had ended, not in
a vigorous effort to regain the lost dominions of England’s sovereign,
but in the despatch of a handful of knights under the earl of Salisbury
to reinforce the garrison of La Rochelle.[476] That it had so ended was
directly owing to the action of the primate and the Marshal. But it
would obviously have been impossible for two men, however influential,
to prevail against the king, if his policy had been supported by the
whole body of the baronage on the spot and in arms. The most probable
explanation of the matter is that Hubert and William knew the majority
of the barons to be, at best, half-hearted in the cause. Whether,
in a military and political point of view, the moment was really
favourable or unfavourable for the undertaking which John contemplated
and from which they shrank, is a question on which speculation is
useless. All we can say is that if an opportunity was thrown away, the
responsibility for its rejection does not lie upon John.
[Sidenote: 1205–1206]
John’s own feeling about the scene at Portsmouth came out, brutally
indeed, but very naturally, in the exclamation with which he received
the tidings of Archbishop Hubert’s death on July 13: “Now for the
first time I am King of England!”[477] He took up afresh the plan
which Hubert had foiled. Ten months, indeed, had to pass before he
could bring his forces together again; but when at last “a great host”
gathered at Portsmouth once more, ready to sail on Whitsun Eve {May
27}, 1206,[478] not a voice was raised to oppose its embarkation. The
year had passed without disturbance in England; nothing had been seen,
nothing further had even been heard, of the dreaded Flemish and French
invasion. But on the other side of the sea the delay had told. The fall
of Loches, shortly after Easter 1205,[479] had been followed on June
23--scarcely a fortnight after the break-up of the English muster--by
that of Chinon,[480] and this again by the submission of the viscount
of Thouars to the French conqueror.[481] Thus the last foothold of the
Angevins in Touraine and on the northern frontier of Poitou were lost.
There remained to John only two fortresses on the northern border of
Poitou--Niort[482] and La Rochelle, the “fair city of the waters,”
whose natural position made it almost impregnable even in those days,
whither John had twice sent reinforcements,[483] and whose harbour
offered a safe and commodious landing-place for him and his troops.
[Sidenote: 1206]
On June 7 John arrived at La Rochelle,[484] and met with an eager
welcome; the vassals of the duchy of Aquitaine flocked to the standard
of Eleanor’s heir. Six days after his landing he could venture as far
into Poitou as the abbey of St. Maixent, half-way between Niort and
Poitiers. The Poitevin counts had for centuries been benefactors to
the abbey, and their descendant was no doubt sure of a welcome within
its walls. He made, however, no further advance northward; it was
needful, before doing so, to be quite sure of his footing in the south.
From St. Maixent he went back to Niort, and thence southward through
Saintonge[485] into Gascony. Here there was known to be a hostile party
whose leaders had congregated in the castle of Montauban, a mighty
fortress which Charles the Great was said to have besieged for seven
years in vain.[486] In the middle of July, John formed the siege of
Montauban, and then himself withdrew to Bourg-sur-Mer, a little seaport
at the mouth of the Garonne, while his engines hurled their missiles
against the fortress, till on the fifteenth day a sufficient breach was
made, when “the English soldiery, who are specially admirable in this
work, rushed to scale the walls, and to give and receive intolerable
blows. At last the Englishmen prevailed, the besieged gave way, and the
castle was taken.” John had probably come back to direct in person the
assault thus successfully made by his brave “Englishmen,” for he was
at Montauban on the day of its capture, August 1.[487] With it there
fell into his hands, besides horses and arms and countless other spoil,
a number of prisoners of such importance that we are told he sent a
list of their names to his justiciars in England.[488] They evidently
included all the Gascon barons whose hostility he had had reason to
fear; and with them in his power, he could turn his back upon the south
without further anxiety.
By August 21 John was back at Niort; after spending a week
there, he proceeded to Montmorillon, on the borders of Poitou and
Berry.[489] At this critical moment Almeric of Thouars reverted to
his old allegiance.[490] John at once struck right across Poitou to
Clisson,[491] on the borders of Anjou and Britanny; Almeric joined
him either there or on the way thither, and they marched together
into Anjou. A chronicler writing in the abbey of S. Aubin at Angers,
which had always been under the special patronage and protection of
John’s ancestors, tells how “when the king came to the river Loire, he
found no boats for crossing. Therefore, on the Wednesday before the
Nativity of the Blessed Mary {Sept. 6}, coming to the Port Alaschert,
and making the sign of the cross over the water with his hand, he,
relying on Divine aid, forded the river with all his host; which is
a marvellous thing to tell, and such as was never heard of in our
time.” With fire and sword the host fought its way into Angers, and
for a whole week the heir of Fulk the Red held his court in the home
of his forefathers.[492] He then marched up to Le Lude, on the border
of Maine. On September 20 he was at Angers again, but left it next
day.[493] On the two following days he was at Coudray, a few miles
south of Saumur; there, probably, he and Almeric divided their forces,
Almeric moving westward through his own land to attack Britanny,[494]
while John seems to have gone southward again.[495] On October 3 he
was at Thouars, where he stayed a week,[496] perhaps to await Almeric’s
return.
Meanwhile, however, Philip Augustus had assembled the host of France,
and led it as far as the Poitevin border.[497] With Philip’s personal
appearance on the scene of action, John knew that his own successes
were at an end. Neither Almeric of Thouars, nor the many barons in the
English host who had taken the oath of allegiance to Philip, would
fight against that monarch in person. While John went on to secure
his retreat over sea by another visit to Niort and La Rochelle,[498]
therefore, negotiations were set on foot; and when he came back to
Thouars once more, on October 26, it was to proclaim a truce which had
been made between himself and Philip, to last from October 13 for two
years. By its terms each sovereign was to retain during that period
the homage and services of all those who had attached themselves to
him during the recent war; and any disputes which might arise about
the allegiance of such persons were to be decided by the judgement of
four barons named, two to represent each of the kings.[499] Trade, and
intercourse of every kind, between the dominions of John and Philip
was to be free, save that no man, unless he were either a priest or
a “known merchant,” might go to the court of either without special
licence, if he were a subject of the other. Thirteen sureties swore
to the truce on behalf of John, and thirteen on behalf of Philip, who
further undertook that it should be kept by four other barons whose
oaths John had wished to have on his side, but had apparently been
unable to obtain.[500] Philip’s sureties were headed by “the count of
Britanny,” a title which can only represent Constance’s widower, Guy
of Thouars, and thus shows that Arthur’s death was now, at any rate,
regarded as certain. The first of John’s sureties was Guy’s brother,
Almeric, the viscount of Thouars, whose action had for several years
past generally turned the scale between the rival sovereigns in Poitou,
and who by the terms of the truce was pledged to his present allegiance
for the next two years at least. The other sureties on both sides were
nearly all of them barons of Aquitaine;[501] those of the Angevin
counties seem for the most part to have stood aloof. It is clear,
however, that John had secured a firm hold on the southern provinces,
and to a considerable extent regained a hold upon Poitou. On the whole,
therefore, his expedition had been successful. The best proof of its
success lies in Philip’s readiness to accept such a truce, without
making any attempt to regain the ground which he had lost in Poitou,
though he was actually in the land with an army at his back. As for
John, he was going home to his island realm to prepare for a fight of
another kind, and with an adversary of a character very different from
that of Philip Augustus.
FOOTNOTES:
[262] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 98, and R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 88.
[263] “Quod praedictus dux redderet unicuique illorum jus suum,” R.
Howden, vol. iv. p. 88.
[264] Stubbs, pref. to W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. xxvi., xxvii.
[265] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 90.
[266] R. Coggeshall, pp. 99, 100.
[267] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 89, 90.
[268] R. Wendover (ed. Coxe), vol. iii. pp. 139, 140. Cf. _Gesta Ric._
pp. 81, 82.
[269] That the famous speech put into the mouth of Archbishop Hubert by
Matthew Paris (_Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. pp. 454, 455) is _not_ noted by
contemporary writers does not indeed prove that it was never delivered,
but does indicate that, if delivered, it had for contemporary ears no
such significance as has been given to it by some modern writers, or as
Matthew himself appears to have attached to it. Some such address may
have been made to the assembly by the archbishop before the coronation;
but if so, it was evidently regarded at the time as a part of the
formalities usual on the occasion, not remarkable enough to be worth
recording. In Matthew’s own MS. the passage is a marginal addition; and
in the form in which he gives it, I can only regard it as the first of
the many unauthenticated interpolations into the plain text of Roger of
Wendover with which Matthew has confused for later students the history
of the reign of John.
[270] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 90; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 139.
[271] _Mag. Vita S. Hugon._ p. 293.
[272] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 140.
[273] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 88, 89.
[274] _Ib._ p. 91.
[275] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 140.
[276] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166.
[277] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 91, says “Nottingham,” but R. Diceto, vol.
ii. p. 166, says “Northampton,” and Hardy’s _Itinerary of K. John_, a.
1, shows the king at Northampton on Whit Monday, June 7.
[278] R. Howden, _l.c._
[279] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 91. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166, gives the
date as June 19, but the _Itin._ a. 1 shows John at Shoreham on the
20th, which is R. Howden’s date for the crossing.
[280] R. Coggeshall, p. 100.
[281] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 92. The place called by Gervase “Ballum”
and “Wallum” can only be Gaillon, which Roger of Howden calls “Gwallum”
in vol. iv. p. 106.
[282] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 92, 93.
[283] _Itin._ a. 1.
[284] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 93. See the treaty with
Flanders--dateless, but probably executed on this occasion--in _Rot.
Chart._ p. 31.
[285] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 95.
[286] _Rot. Chart._ pp. 30, 31 (a. r. 1). “Et,” adds John, “non tantum
de praedictis terris nostris volumus quod sit domina, sed etiam de
nobis et omnibus terris et rebus nostris.”
[287] Rigord, c. 129.
[288] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 95.
[289] _Rot. Chart._ p. 30.
[290] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 96.
[291] _Itin._ a. 1.
[292] R. Howden, _l.c._
[293] The writer of the _Hist. de G. le Mar._ v. 12472, calls it “Borc
la _Reïne_,” but seemingly for no other reason than that he had ended
his previous line with the word “_fine_” and wanted a rime to it.
[294] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12471–86.
[295] _Rot. Chart._ _l.c._
[296] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 96, 97. Cf. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 167,
_Rot. Chart._ p. 31, and for dates _Itin._ a. 1, which show that
Roger’s “mense Octobris” cannot be right. That Constance had come with
her son is nowhere stated, but appears from the sequel.
[297] _Itin._ a. 1.
[298] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12473–4.
[299] _Itin._ a. 1.
[300] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 97. Rigord, c. 129, says S. John’s Day.
[301] _Itin._ a. 1.
[302] Rigord, c. 131.
[303] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 106, 107; R. Coggeshall, pp. 100, 101.
[304] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 92.
[305] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 107.
[306] He landed at Portsmouth on February 24, _Ann. Winton._ a. 1200.
[307] R. Coggeshall, p. 101. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 107.
[308] R. Howden, _l.c._ John was at York March 25 to 28, _Itin._ a. 1.
[309] R. Coggeshall, pp. 102, 103. John was at Porchester on April 28,
and at Valognes on May 2, _Itin._ a. 1.
[310] Rigord, c. 132. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 115, whose chronology
is less sound.
[311] Cf. the treaty of 1200 in R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 148–51, and
_Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 79, 80, with that of 1195 in _Foedera_,
_ib._ p. 66.
[312] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 150.
[313] R. Coggeshall, p. 101.
[314] Rigord, c. 132. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 115.
[315] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 125. Dates from _Itin._ a. 2.
[316] _Itin._ a. 2. For the reception at Bordeaux see _Hist. de G. le
Mar._ vv. 11956–8.
[317] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 167.
[318] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119.
[319] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 167. R. Coggeshall, p. 103, has another
version, but it seems to be incorrect. On the whole question of this
divorce see Prof. Maitland’s remarks in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ Oct. 1895,
vol. x. pp. 758, 759.
[320] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. v. No. 50.
[321] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 97.
[322] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 150. This was in fulfilment of an
agreement made between Philip on the one part, and the count of
Angoulême and the viscount of Limoges on the other, just after
Richard’s death. Round, _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 471.
[323] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119; R. Coggeshall, p. 103.
[324] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119; R. Coggeshall, pp. 128, 129; R.
Wendover, vol. iii. p. 168. All these writers confuse Isabel’s
betrothed with his father.
[325] _Rot. Chart._ p. 97.
[326] _Ib._ pp. 58, 59.
[327] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 170.
[328] R. Coggeshall, p. 103.
[329] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 11984–6. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119.
[330] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 120. For date see _Memorials of S.
Edmund’s_, vol. ii. p. 8.
[331] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 139; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 170; R.
Coggeshall, p. 103 (with a wrong date).
[332] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 140–3.
[333] _Ib._ p. 156.
[334] _Itin._ a. 2.
[335] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 160.
[336] Will. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 110. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. pp.
160, 161.
[337] _Rot. Chart._ p. 102.
[338] _Ib._
[339] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. vi. No. 167. R. Coggeshall, p. 135, dates
this appeal a year too late. The Pope, on the authority of Philip
himself, speaks of it as having been made “more than a year before”
Philip issued his citation to John, a citation of which the date is by
other evidence fixed at the end of March or early in April 1202.
[340] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 2, dateless, but as the document is on the
roll of John’s second year, its date must be before May 3, 1201. From
its position on the roll, it would seem to belong to October 1200.
[341] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 160; R. Coggeshall, pp. 128, 129.
[342] _Rot. Chart._ p. 102.
[343] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 160, 161.
[344] _Ib._ p. 163.
[345] _Ib._ pp. 163, 164.
[346] _Itin._ a. 3.
[347] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 161.
[348] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. vi. Nos. 163, 167.
[349] Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 164; Rigord, c. 135; Gerv. Cant. vol.
ii. p. 93; and for dates, _Itin._ a. 3. Rigord’s “pridie Kalendas
Junii” is doubtless a mistake for “Julii.”
[350] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. vi. No. 167.
[351] _Itin._ a. 3.
[352] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 176.
[353] _Ib._
[354] W. Brito, _Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 106–43.
[355] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93. Hubert crossed on December 14, R.
Diceto, vol. ii. p. 173.
[356] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 5, 6.
[357] Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 174;
Rigord, c. 137; and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167. John was at Orival
on March 23; then there is a blank for three days, and on March 27 he
appears at Les Andelys, _Itin._ a. 3.
[358] _I.e._ on April 28. The date is from Rigord, c. 138.
[359] R. Coggeshall, pp. 135, 136. Cf. Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. _Gesta
P. A._ c. 110; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93; and Innoc. III. _Epp._ l.
vi. No. 167.
[360] R. Coggeshall, p. 136.
[361] Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 110. Cf. Gerv. Cant.
vol. ii. p. 93, and Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. vi. No. 167.
[362] R. Coggeshall, p. 136.
[363] See “The Alleged Condemnation of King John by the Court of France
in 1202,” in _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_, new
series, vol. xiv. (1900), pp. 53–68.
[364] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93.
[365] Innoc. III. _Epp._ _l.c._
[366] Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 94; Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. _Gesta
P. A._ c. 112; and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167.
[367] Innoc. III. _Epp._ _l.c._
[368] The war had begun before May 11, _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 10.
[369] Cf. Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 204–20, and
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167.
[370] See _Itin._ a. 3, 4.
[371] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167; for dates cf. _Itin._ a. 4. Gerv.
Cant. vol. ii. p. 94, places this siege too late.
[372] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 115.
[373] _Chron. Britann._ a. 1201, in Morice, _Hist. de Bretagne,
preuves_, vol. i. cols. 6, 106.
[374] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 7.
[375] Delisle, _Catalogue des Actes de Phil.-Aug._, No. 726.
[376] Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 113. Arthur’s charter
giving full details of his homage to Philip is in Round, _Cal. Doc.
France_, vol. i. p. 475. Date, Gournay, July 1202.
[377] Cf. Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 113, and
_Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 262–389; R. Coggeshall, p. 137; Gerv. Cant. vol.
ii. p. 94, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 168.
[378] Dates from John’s own letter, in R. Coggeshall, pp. 137, 138. Cf.
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 169.
[379] R. Coggeshall, p. 137.
[380] R. Coggeshall, p. 138; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 169; Rigord,
c. 138; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 113. This last has another version
in his later and less trustworthy work, the _Philippis_, l. vi. vv.
390–450. See also _Hist. des Ducs de Normandie_ (ed. Michel, _Soc. de
l’Hist. de France_), pp. 93–95.
[381] Rigord, c. 138; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 169.
[382] He reached Falaise on August 10, _Itin._ a. 4.
[383] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 170; W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vi. vv.
455, 456.
[384] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 120. In _Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 343–6,
he dates this expedition earlier. In both works he speaks as if John
had headed it in person, but the _Itin._ a. 3, 4, shows that this was
not the case.
[385] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 114; R. Coggeshall, p. 138. John was
at Chinon August 20–21, at Tours August 22–23, at Chinon again August
24–29, and at Tours again August 30–September 1, _Itin._ a. 4.
[386] _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._ vol. xviii. p. 799.
[387] Rigord, c. 138. Cf. _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 18.
[388] R. Coggeshall, p. 138; _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12531–35. Ralf
of Eu was set free before November 7, 1202, Hugh and Geoffrey before
January 17, 1203; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 20, 23.
[389] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12536–50.
[390] _Ib._ vv. 12595–606. On the name see M. Delaborde’s note, _Œuvres
de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton_, vol. ii. p. 282.
[391] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12569–84; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 95.
[392] R. Coggeshall, p. 139. Date from _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1202.
[393] _Itin._ a. 4.
[394] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._
[395] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 171.
[396] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12585–662. The writer appears to date
this affair in autumn 1202; and the _Itinerary_, a. 4, shows that John
did in fact go from Alençon to Le Mans on October 29, 1202. But the
rest of the story is irreconcileable with John’s subsequent movements.
The only documentary evidence which I have found as to the date of
Count Robert’s treason is unluckily not decisive; it is a charter of
John, given “apud Beccum, xx die Aprilis anno regni nostri quarto,
quo comes Robertus Sagiensis fecit nobis proditionem apud Alenconem”
(Round, _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 131). John in the fourth year
of his reign made three visits to Alençon besides the one already
mentioned; viz. one on December 7, 1202, and two in January 1203. The
first of these two January visits is probably the one recorded by the
Marshal’s biographer. John was at Alençon January 15–19, at Le Mans
January 21–23, and at Alençon again January 25 (_Itin._ a. 4). The
Marshal’s biographer indeed asserts that the king on his return from Le
Mans
“Ne s’en vint pas par Alençon;
N’i passast unques sanz tençon
Anceis qu’il venist en sa terre;
Aileors ala passage quere;
Par Mamerz et par Belesmeis
S’en vint en sa terre li reis” (vv. 12657–62).
It seems, however, possible to reconcile this with the dates as given
in the _Itinerary_ by supposing that, as he had an escort of “granz
gens e rotiers,” he may have ventured close up to Alençon, perhaps
with an idea of surprising it, but turned away again immediately. The
_Itinerary_ shows him at Séez on January 25–28, at Argentan on 28–30,
and at Falaise 30–31.
[397] R. Coggeshall, pp. 139–41.
[398] _Itin._ a. 4.
[399] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 170. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 143.
[400] _Ann. Margan._ a. 1204; the annalist, however, clearly meant to
date the event 1203. On the value of his authority see Bémont, _Revue
historique_, vol. xxxii. (1886), p. 59.
[401] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 552–66.
[402] See _Revue historique_, vol. xxxii. pp. 33–72 and 291–311. M.
Bémont’s conclusion on this point, though disputed by M. P. Guilhiermoz
in _Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes_, vol. lx. (1899), pp. 45–85,
still holds the field. Cf. _Revue hist._ vol. lxxi. (1899), pp. 33–41,
and _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, vol. lx. pp. 363–72.
[403] Delisle, _Catal. des Actes de Phil.-Aug._ No. 783. According to
R. Coggeshall, pp. 144, 145, Philip virtually declared himself still
ignorant on the point six months later still.
[404] Thus in March he received the liege homage of Maurice of Craon
“for the time of Arthur’s imprisonment”; should Arthur be released
and adhere to his engagements with Philip, Maurice was to be Arthur’s
liegeman as he had been of old; should Arthur break faith with Philip,
then Maurice was to adhere to the latter; should Arthur die, then
Maurice was to remain a liegeman of Philip. In like manner the castles
of Brissac and Chemillé were in the following October granted by Philip
to Guy of Thouars, “saving the rights of Arthur if he be still alive,”
Delisle, _Catal. des Actes de Phil.-Aug._ Nos. 752, 783.
[405] These were the alternative versions proposed by John’s friends,
according to M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 95.
[406] _Chron. S. Albini Andeg._ a. 1203.
[407] Rigord, c. 140; wrongly dated.
[408] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12675–720.
[409] Cf. Rigord, c. 140; R. Coggeshall, p. 143; and R. Wendover, vol.
iii. p. 172.
[410] _Itin._ a. 5.
[411] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 171, 172.
[412] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. vi. No. 163; dated Anagni, Oct. 29, 1203.
[413] _Ib._ No. 167 (same date).
[414] _Ib._ Nos. 68, 69.
[415] _Ib._ No. 163.
[416] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc. 117, 118. The dates of the siege of
Alençon come from _Itin._ a. 5.
[417] The siege of Château-Gaillard was begun before the end of August.
See below, p. 96.
[418] Will. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 129; _Philipp._ l. vii. vv. 739–47.
[419] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 180.
[420] Rigord, c. 141; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 122; _Philipp._ l.
vii. vv. 29–140.
[421] _Itin._ a. 5.
[422] “Johannem Mollegladium,” Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93. This
nickname is no doubt a translation of one which must have been applied
to John in French, though unluckily its vernacular form is lost. A
friend has suggested that “if the phrase had any English equivalent,
it would probably be something embracing a more direct metaphor than
‘Soft-sword’--something like ‘Tin-sword,’ or, better still, if the
thirteenth century knew of putty, ‘John Putty-sword.’”
[423] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vii. vv. 140–393. Cf. _Gesta P. A._ c.
123.
[424] Rigord, c. 141, says Philip laid siege to Radepont on August 31.
John’s attempt to relieve Les Andelys, being made from Rouen, cannot
have been earlier than August 29, more probably 30, _Itin._ a. 5.
[425] Rigord, c. 141; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 121; _Philipp._ l.
vii. vv. 400–2.
[426] _Itin._ a. 5. He was at Dol September 19–22.
[427] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12721–42.
[428] _Ib._ vv. 12743–67. John was at Rouen from October 4 to 7, when
he went to Bonneville; _Itin._ a. 5. The poet goes on with an account
of the king’s wanderings till “s’en vint a Rouen arere,” but his
itinerary does not agree with the authentic one at any period of this
year.
[429] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vii. vv. 827–9.
[430] _Itin._ a. 5.
[431] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12783–818.
[432] Cf. _Itin._ a. 5 and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 173.
[433] Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._ p. 1059.
[434] “Rege vero Johanne nullum praesidium ferre obsessis volente,
eo quod suorum proditionem semper timeret, infra hyemem, mense
Decembri, in Angliam transfretavit, omnes Normannos in magna timoris
perturbatione relinquens,” R. Coggeshall, p. 144. It seems probable
that “volente” may be a clerical error for “valente.”
[435] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 173, 174.
[436] Rigord, c. 141.
[437] Gerv. Cant. (vol. ii. p. 95) says the council was held “in
London”; R. Coggeshall (p. 144) describes its result, the embassy to
France, as taking place “after Mid-Lent,” _i.e._ after April 1. The
only date about this time when John was in London was March 22–29;
_Itin._ a. 5.
[438] Cf. R. Coggeshall, pp. 144, 145; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 95, 96,
and _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12854–68.
[439] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12869–98. Cf. the Marshal’s charter to
Philip (dated May 1204) in _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 475.
[440] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12934–66.
[441] _Ib._ vv. 12905–20.
[442] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 173, 175.
[443] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12921–6. John was at Portsmouth on May
5, and at Porchester on May 5–7, 1204. The story may, however, be a
mere confusion with what happened in June 1205.
[444] R. Coggeshall, p. 145, dates Philip’s siege of Falaise Easter
(April 25); but Rigord, a better authority on the point, places it in
the May campaign (c. 142).
[445] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 145; Rigord, c. 142; W. Armor. _Gesta P.
A._ c. 131, and _Philipp._ l. viii. vv. 9–39.
[446] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 131.
[447] Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._ pp. 1057–9.
[448] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 181. That John was penniless may be
inferred from the desertion of his mercenaries.
[449] Rigord, c. 142. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 146, and _Hist. des Ducs de
Normandie_, p. 98.
[450] R. Coggeshall, p. 146.
[451] _Ann. Waverley_, a. 1204.
[452] R. Coggeshall, p. 146.
[453] _Ib._; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 181.
[454] R. Coggeshall, p. 147.
[455] John was in London January 16–21, 1205 (_Itin._ a. 6). This is
evidently the date of the council.
[456] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 96, 97.
[457] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 50.
[458] _Ib._ pp. 51, 52.
[459] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 97, 98. For date see _Itin._ a. 6.
[460] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 55.
[461] Chinon, Loches, Thouars, Niort and La Rochelle.
[462] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12934–66.
[463] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 96.
[464] As a reason for Anet being chosen by Philip as the place of
meeting, the Marshal’s biographer says:
“Quer s’ost out semonse por veir
Por aler Caem aseeir” (vv. 12977–8).
But this is an anachronism: Caen had been surrendered to Philip in May
or June 1204 (see above, p. 102), and we are now in spring 1205.
[465] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12967–13087. See the Marshal’s charter
to Philip in _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 475.
[466] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 182.
[467] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 54.
[468] _Itin._ a. 7.
[469] R. Coggeshall, p. 148.
[470] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 96, 97; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 55.
[471] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 13103–270.
[472] R. Coggeshall, p. 154. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 98, says that the
ships were said to number nearly fifteen hundred, and R. Coggeshall, p.
153, that the shipmen were said to be fourteen thousand.
[473] R. Coggeshall, pp. 152, 153.
[474] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 154; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 98; and R.
Wendover, vol. iii. p. 182, with _Itin._ a. 7.
[475] R. Wendover, _l.c._
[476] R. Coggeshall, p. 154.
[477] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 104. R. Wendover, vol. iii.
p. 183, and R. Coggeshall, p. 156, date Hubert’s death July 13; Gerv.
Cant., vol. ii. p. 98, dates it July 12. They all mean the same; from
R. Coggeshall, p. 158, we learn that the archbishop died shortly after
midnight.
[478] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 186; exact date from a writ (dated
April 29, 1206) ordering the seizure of ships for transport; they are
to be at Portsmouth on Whitsun Eve, or before. _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp.
62 b, 63. A summons to the men of the Cinque Ports, for the same date,
was issued on May 12; _ib._ p. 64.
[479] Rigord, c. 144; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 134; R. Coggeshall, p.
152.
[480] R. Coggeshall, p. 154; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 182, 183.
[481] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 135.
[482] Niort had been taken by, or had surrendered to, Philip, but
was regained in 1205 for John by a stratagem of Savaric de Mauléon,
whom John had taken prisoner at Mirebeau and released on a promise of
fealty--a promise which was immediately fulfilled and faithfully kept.
See _Hist. des Ducs de Normandie_, pp. 100–4; and cf. (as to Savaric)
R. Coggeshall, p. 146.
[483] R. Coggeshall, p. 154.
[484] John crossed from Stoke to Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, on May 28,
and thence to La Rochelle on June 7. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 186,
where _Julii_ is, of course, in both places a mistake for _Junii_; and
_Itin._ a. 8.
[485] _Itin._ a. 8.
[486] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 187. The legend of the building of
Montauban by the “Four Sons of Aymon,” and its siege by Charles, is
told in the romance of _Renaus de Montauban_.
[487] Cf. R. Wendover, _l.c._, and _Itin._ a. 8.
[488] R. Wendover, _l.c._ Unluckily the letter does not seem to be
extant.
[489] _Itin._ a. 8.
[490] Rigord, c. 147; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 138.
[491] August 30, _Itin._ a. 8.
[492] Cf. _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1206; Rigord, c. 147; W. Armor. _Gesta
P. A._ c. 138, and _Itin._ a. 8. This last shows John on September 6
at Chalonnes, and on the 8th at Angers. “Portus Alaschert,” therefore,
must stand for Chalonnes or some place very near it.
[493] _Itin._ a. 8. The _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1206, says that before
he left the city he set fire to “the bridge”; which of the two bridges
then existing, we are not told, nor what was his object in destroying
it.
[494] W. Armor. _l.c._
[495] The next stage of his Itinerary is “Saint Alemand” (September
23–26), and the next after that (September 30, October 1) a place whose
name is recorded only in a contracted form (“Bercer’,” _Rot. Pat._ vol.
i. p. 167 b; “Berc’,” _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 74 b) which can hardly
represent anything else than “Berchères” or “Bercières” (Sir T. D.
Hardy made it _Bercy_, but this is surely impossible). Saint Alemand is
probably one of two places now called Saint-Amand, in the Angoumois.
“Tiebauts de Biaumont qui sires estoit de _Bierchières_ [var.
_Bercières_]” figures among the Aquitanian barons who besieged Savaric
de Mauléon at Niort in 1205; _Hist. des Ducs de Normandie_, p. 102. I
have failed to identify the place, but it was clearly in Aquitaine.
[496] _Itin._ a. 8.
[497] Rigord, c. 147; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 139.
[498] _Itin._ a. 8.
[499] Ralf (of Lusignan), count of Eu, and Hugh, viscount of
Châtelheraut, for Philip; Savaric de Mauléon and William of Chantemerle
for John.
[500] William des Roches, Maurice of Craon, William of Guerches, and
Geoffrey of Ancenis. This promise seems to have been made by Philip in
person.
[501] See the truce in Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._ pp. 1061–2, and
_Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 95.