by knight-service were ordered to meet the king at Oxford on November
15. On November 7 John sent letters to the sheriffs bidding each one
of them cause the knights within his shire to appear as previously
directed, with their arms, the barons also in person but without arms,
“and”--so ran the writ--“that thou cause to come thither at the same
time four discreet men of the shire, to speak with us concerning the
affairs of our realm.”[861] This writ is the earliest known instance
of an attempt to call into council on “the affairs of the realm”
representatives of the freemen of the shire, as distinguished from the
tenants-in-chivalry. Representatives in the strict sense of the word,
indeed, they were not; the writ says nothing of how they were to be
chosen, and there can be little doubt that they would be selected by
the sheriff. Still, the fact remains that--so far as extant evidence
goes--John Lackland seems to have been the first English statesman who
proposed to give some place, however subordinate, in the great council
of the realm to laymen who were neither barons nor knights, but simple
freemen. His motive is plain; he was seeking to win the support of the
yeomen as a counterpoise to the hostility of the barons. Unluckily we
know nothing of the results of his experiment, and cannot even be sure
that it was actually tried; for though the king was certainly at Oxford
in that year on November 15 and the two following days,[862] no mention
occurs, in either chronicle or record, of any council holden there at
that date.
[Sidenote: 1213–14]
At Christmas John held his court at Windsor, “where he distributed
robes of state to a multitude of his nobles.”[863] Immediately
afterwards Count Ferrand of Flanders came over to cement his alliance
with the English king by performing his homage to him in person,
at Canterbury, in the second week of January 1214.[864] Raymond of
Toulouse had been over shortly before; the fortunes of war had gone
utterly against him, and nothing but prompt succour from John, in
some shape or other, could enable him to hold out any longer in his
capital city, the sole refuge now left to him. He is said to have
gone back, after doing homage to John, with a subsidy of ten thousand
marks.[865] Early in January the king announced to the primate and
the bishops that he himself was about to depart over sea, and begged
that they would lend their support to Bishop Peter of Winchester and
the other persons in whose charge he intended to leave the kingdom
during his absence.[866] At the end of the month he put in train
a scheme for conciliating the eldest son of the late justiciar by
marrying him to the greatest heiress in England--that same Countess
Isabel of Gloucester who had once been married to John himself.[867]
On February 1 John by letters patent appointed Peter des Roches, the
bishop of Winchester, to the office of justiciar of England, and
committed his realm to the custody and protection of the Holy Roman
Church, the Pope and the Legate, leaving Peter as keeper of the peace
in his stead.[868] Next day he embarked at Portsmouth with his queen,
his son Richard,[869] his niece Eleanor of Britanny, and a quantity of
treasure; he spent a few days at Yarmouth in the Isle of Wight, and
thence sailed to Poitou.[870]
[Sidenote: 1214]
It was evidently of set purpose that the appointment of a new chief
justiciar had been delayed till the very eve of the king’s departure.
When it came to the knowledge of the barons, they all grumbled at
having a foreigner set over them;[871] but they did not know it till
the expedition had sailed, and their discontent could vent itself only
in useless words.
Over sea the king’s partisans were ready to welcome him. At La
Rochelle the barons of Aquitaine came crowding to offer him their
allegiance.[872] Leaving La Rochelle on February 20, he moved northward
to Mervant, in the middle of Lower Poitou. Mervant belonged to Geoffrey
de Lusignan; and the king’s visit to this place may have been connected
with some negotiations between him and the Lusignan family which
were certainly begun soon after his landing in Aquitaine. He next
proceeded southward, to the abbey of La Grâce-Dieu on the border of
Saintonge; on February 25 he was at Niort.[873] Meanwhile he had opened
communications with the men of Périgord and the viscounts of Limoges
and Turenne.[874] On March 6 he was back at La Rochelle, whence he sent
on the 8th, in letters patent addressed to the “good men” of all the
chief cities of England, the following account of his expedition: “Know
ye that we and our faithful followers whom we brought with us to Poitou
are safe and well, and by God’s grace we have already begun to expedite
our affairs to the joy and gladness of our friends and the confusion of
our foes. For on the Sunday before Mid-Lent {March 2} we laid siege to
the castle of Milécu, which Porteclin de Mausé had fortified against
us, and on the following Tuesday {March 4} we took it.”[875] Moving
across Saintonge and up the Charente, he reached Angoulême on the
13th, stayed there two days, then advanced eastward to Saint-Junien
and Aixe in the Limousin;[876] at Aixe, on March 22, he granted the
seneschalship of Limoges to Emeric de Roche, and that of Périgord to
Geoffrey Teyson.[877] On Palm Sunday, March 23, he left Aixe, and
thence he struck right across the county of La Marche to Saint-Vaury
and La Souterraine, on the southern border of Berry; he spent Good
Friday and Easter at La Souterraine,[878] and there, on Easter Day
(March 30), he received the homage of the count of Périgord.[879] He
then re-crossed La Marche and the Limousin--stopping this time for
two days at Grandmont, where the monks evidently still had a ready
welcome for the son of their old friend King Henry--back to Limoges and
Angoulême, Cognac and Saintes; thence, turning southward, he proceeded
through Périgord as far as La Réole in the county of Agen. On April
20 he was back at Mausé in Saintonge, and for the next fortnight he
was never far from either La Rochelle or Niort; but on May 6 he was at
Saint-Léger in Anjou, and it was there that he spent Ascension Day, May
8. Two days later he was again at Niort.[880]
The panegyrist of Philip Augustus asserts that John’s sudden dash into
the lands south of Périgord was prompted by dread of Philip, who,
“being desirous to meet him” in the field, had hurried to the Poitevin
border, and was preparing to cut him off from his fleet. The same
writer, however, owns almost in the same breath that “no one knows,
ever has known, or ever will know, the way of a serpent, of a ship on
the deep, of a feather in the wind, or of a deceiver” such as John; and
that Philip dared neither attempt to follow him nor await his return,
but hurried back--after burning the rural districts of Poitou--to
protect his own interests in Flanders.[881] John’s erratic movements
had probably a double purpose: to baffle Philip, and to ascertain the
extent of his own resources in the south. Of more real importance than
these tentative excursions was a negotiation which he had set on foot
with the house of Lusignan, whose alliance and allegiance he proposed
to regain by giving the infant Joan, his eldest daughter by Isabel of
Angoulême, in marriage to young Hugh of La Marche, as compensation
for the loss of Isabel herself. The first preliminary was a truce
with the counts of La Marche and Eu; and it was probably this truce
which enabled John to pass unmolested through La Marche on his way to
and from La Souterraine. The third Lusignan brother, Geoffrey, seems
not to have been included in the truce; and when it expired no terms
of peace had been agreed upon. “We therefore”--so wrote John to his
representatives in England--“on the Friday next before Pentecost {May
16} transported ourself and our army to Geoffrey’s castle of Mervant;
and although many believed it impregnable by assault, yet on Whitsun
Eve {May 17}, by one assault lasting from daybreak to the hour of
prime, we took it by force. On Whitsunday {May 18} we laid siege to
another of Geoffrey’s castles, Vouvant, in which was he himself with
his two sons; and when we had plied our slings against it continually
for three days {May 20}, so that its fall was imminent, the count of
La Marche came to us and caused the said Geoffrey to surrender himself
to our mercy, with his two sons, his castle, and all that was in it.”
Another of Geoffrey’s castles, Montcontour, which lay farther east,
close to the Angevin border, was at the same time besieged by Louis
of France. The French king seems to have discovered the negotiations
of the Lusignans with his rival, and to have been so much alarmed at
the prospect of a reconciliation which would deprive him of his best
helpers in Aquitaine that he tried to prevent it by offering a son of
his own as bridegroom for little Joan; but Joan’s father was too wary
to take the French bait. On learning that Louis was at Montcontour,
“we,” says John, “at once turned thitherward to meet him; so that
on Trinity Sunday {May 25} we were at Parthenay, where the count
of La Marche and the count of Eu came to us with the said Geoffrey
of Lusignan and did us homage and fealty. And as it had been under
discussion between ourself and the count of La Marche that we should
give our daughter Joan in marriage to his son, we did so grant it to
him, although the king of France asked for her for his own son; but
that demand was a trick; for we remembered how our niece was given to
the French king’s son Louis, and what was the consequence of that; but
may God grant us more profit from this marriage than we have had from
that one! And now,” ends the king with a burst of eager anticipation,
“by God’s grace there is given us an opportunity to carry our attack
upon our chief enemy, the king of France, beyond the limits of
Poitou.”[882]
He made good use of his opportunity. Louis had apparently retired from
Montcontour at his approach, for we hear nothing of any encounter
between them, and within twenty-four hours of his departure from
Parthenay John was at Cissé, only a few miles from Poitiers. On
Poitiers he made no attempt, but passed on into Berry, into which he
penetrated as far north as Chezelles (June 7). Four days later he was
at Ancenis, on the border of Anjou and Britanny. The next week was
spent in feeling his way towards Angers. From Ancenis, on June 12, he
moved up the Loire to St. Florent and Rochefort,[883] thus securing the
approach to the city from the west and south. Then, by a master stroke
of audacity, he seems to have suddenly made a rapid march westward
again, to draw up his forces on June 13[884] within sight of Nantes.
The citizens and the French garrison came forth to meet him at the
bridge outside the city; in the fight which ensued John’s troops were
completely victorious, and twenty French knights were taken prisoners,
among them a cousin of the French king, the eldest son of Count Robert
of Dreux whose second son, Peter, was now recognized by the French as
“count of Britanny” in right of his wife Alice, the half-sister of
Arthur and Eleanor.[885] Whether this victory struck terror into the
men of Angers, and whether they opened their gates to the victor in
consequence, we cannot tell; we only know that on June 17 and 18 John
was once more in the original capital of his forefathers.[886] But
once more he was compelled by the untrustworthiness of his followers to
turn his back upon it, and this time for ever.
The castles in the immediate neighbourhood of Angers were mostly in
the hands of John or his friends; there was, however, one important
exception--La Roche-au-Moine,[887] where William des Roches, now
seneschal of Anjou for Philip Augustus, had lately built a fortress
to protect the road between Angers and Nantes against the garrison
of Rochefort, whose commandant was a partisan of John.[888] To La
Roche-au-Moine John laid siege with all his forces on June 19. The
siege had lasted a fortnight[889] when Louis advanced from Chinon to
relieve the place, then on the verge of surrender. At the tidings of
his approach John sent out scouts to ascertain the strength of the
enemy; they returned with the assurance that the English king had an
overwhelming advantage in numbers, and was certain to be victorious
if he engaged the French in a pitched battle. John was eager for the
fight;[890] so, according to the French historiographer-royal, was
Louis, who sent to his rival a public challenge, which John as publicly
accepted.[891] But the “wonted treachery”--as an exasperated English
writer calls it--of the Poitevins overthrew his hopes. According to
one account, “the barons of Poitou, disdaining to follow the king,
said that they were not ready for a fight in the open field.”[892]
According to the French version of the story, the immediate author of
John’s discomfiture was the veteran turncoat Almeric of Thouars, who,
it seems, addressed John in a most insulting manner, mocking at his
eagerness for battle, insinuating that it was mere boastfulness which
the king would never carry out in act, and then made it impossible
for him to do so, by withdrawing himself and all his followers from
the host.[893] Whichever version be the correct one, the consequences
were inevitable; John could not risk an encounter with Louis after
such a revelation of treason in his own ranks. In rage and grief he
broke up the siege {July 2}, and hurried away to the south side of the
Loire.[894]
His retreat, however, implied no abandonment of the design which had
brought him across the sea. His expedition was only a part of the great
combination whereby he hoped to bring Philip Augustus to ruin. Through
long years of diplomacy he had knit together a league which included
all the powers on the northern and eastern borders of France, and,
now that it was at last ready for united action, threatened the very
existence of the French monarchy. While John was scouring the country
between the Loire and the Dordogne, a formidable host was gathering in
Flanders. Earl William of Salisbury was there with a picked band of
Englishmen; the Flemish troops under Hugh de Boves who had been serving
John as mercenaries in England had been recalled to swell the muster
in their native land; Count Reginald of Boulogne and Count William of
Holland had joined their forces to those of Ferrand; all alike were
soldiers of the king of England, receiving his pay through William of
Salisbury, who as John’s representative was Marshal of the whole host.
While that host ravaged Ponthieu, the dukes of Brabant and Louvain
“with all their might” attacked the north-eastern extremity of the
French border, in concert with a certain German count “whom the French
called _Pelu_.” The Emperor Otto was in full sympathy with the allies,
helping them indirectly by his “counsel and favour”; at last, when the
eastern and western divisions of the composite host had effected a
junction, he himself came with a small body of knights to join their
ranks.[895]
So skilfully and secretly had the combination been planned that
Philip was quite unprepared to meet it. He had sent the greater part
of his available forces southward under Louis to check the progress
of John. For the moment this had been achieved, not so much by Louis
as by the Poitevin traitors. But the check was only momentary; Louis
made no attempt to follow John across the Loire; and John was already
taking steps to fill the places of the Poitevin deserters with more
trustworthy troops. On July 9 he wrote from La Rochelle to “all his
faithful men” in England, telling them that he was safe and prosperous,
thanking them for the support which they had given him hitherto, and
desiring that all those who had not accompanied him over sea would come
to his aid now, unless their presence at home was specially required
by his representatives in the government. “And if,” he added, “any one
of you should think that we have been displeased with him, his surest
way to set that matter right is by coming at our call.”[896] France
was caught between two fires. The most imminent danger was from the
allies who were ready to pour into the realm from the north and east;
but Philip, though conscious that the troops which he had at hand were
insufficient to cope with this danger, dared not recall Louis while
John was still threatening attack from the south. Gathering courage
from the extremity of the peril, the French king hastily collected
what forces he could--counts, barons, knights, men-at-arms, horse and
foot, with the communes of the towns and villages--bade the bishops
and clergy, monks and nuns, offer up masses, prayers and alms for the
safety of the realm, and marched boldly against the invaders. He met
them at the bridge of Bouvines on Sunday, July 27, and routed them
completely. Hugh de Boves fled; Otto fled likewise, or was driven
from the field; the earl of Salisbury, the counts of Flanders and
Boulogne and the German count were made prisoners, together with Otto’s
seneschal and a crowd of other knights. The great coalition which had
cost John so many years of diplomacy and such vast sums of money to
build up was shivered into fragments at a single blow.[897]
Philip re-entered Paris in triumph with his captives,[898] and
then marched southward to unite his victorious army with that of
his son.[899] Against the whole military forces of France, thus
concentrated and in their present mood of exalted patriotism and
enthusiastic loyalty, John was still eager to continue the war; in the
middle of August Peter des Roches was trying to secure the fulfilment
of an order from the king for three hundred Welshmen to join him
over sea before the end of the month.[900] But another power stepped
in to check the hostilities between the kings. Innocent III. was
planning a new crusade, and the first necessity for his purpose was
the restoration of peace in Europe. As early as April 22 he had urged
both the kings, on pain of ecclesiastical censures, to cease from the
strife which was hindering the work to be done in the Holy Land and
imperilling the safety of Christendom, and to make at least a truce
till after the meeting of a general council,[901] the date of which
he had already fixed for All Saints’ Day 1215.[902] The English-born
cardinal who was now legate in France, Robert Curson, seems to have
urged the barons who were with John to persuade him to agree to a truce
for nine days, with a view to arranging a personal interview between
John and Philip.[903] The French king had advanced as far as Loudun,
where he received the submission of Almeric of Thouars and several
other Poitevin barons. John was some seventeen miles off, at Parthenay,
“having,” says Philip’s biographer, “no place to flee unto, and not
daring either to stay where he was, or to offer battle.”[904] To offer
battle at that moment, with the legate and the barons all urgent for
peace, would indeed have been madness; so on August 30 John signified
his assent to a cessation of hostilities for a fortnight from the next
day, if the legate would ensure its observance on the French side.[905]
On September 3 John withdrew to Saint-Maixent; thence he went on the
9th to Niort; on the 12th he returned to Parthenay,[906] and there, on
the 13th, he, by letters patent, pledged himself to ratify whatever
terms nine envoys, whom he named, should agree upon with Philip.[907]
These envoys were supported by the legate in person; “and,” says
William the Breton, “although the high-souled King Philip, having
in his army two thousand knights and more, besides a multitude of
other troops, could easily have seized the whole land and the person
of the king of England, yet with his wonted benignity he granted a
truce.”[908] In England Philip was reported to have yielded either
to the authority of the Pope, or to the attraction of sixty thousand
marks offered to him by John.[909] We may doubt whether either of these
motives, or all of them united, would have proved effectual, if the
complete overthrow and capture of his rival had really been as easy as
the Breton court-historian imagined. The truce was dated from September
18, and was to last for five years from the next Easter, 1215. The
conditions were that each party should retain its prisoners; that the
oath sworn to Philip by the towns of Flanders and Hainaut should be
recognized as valid; that Philip, his men, and his adherents should
hold throughout the time of the truce whatever they held on the day of
its commencement; and that any disputes which might arise should be
settled at certain appointed places by the sworn arbitrators of the
truce, who were eight in number, each of the kings being represented by
two laymen, an abbot and a secular priest. The _maltôte_ or tax levied
by each king on the adherents of his rival was to be given up if John,
its originator, consented to renounce it; if not, Philip claimed the
right to continue it likewise. Frederic of Sicily was to be included in
the truce as an ally of Philip, and Otto as a friend of John, if they
chose to be so included; if otherwise, then Philip was to be at liberty
to assist Frederic and John to assist Otto, within the boundaries of
the empire, without violating the peace between themselves.
[Sidenote: 1214]
Philip’s proclamation of the truce was issued on September 18 from
Chinon.[910] John seems to have been then still at Parthenay. The
terms secured to him the very utmost that he could possibly hope to
attain, now that he was deprived of the co-operation of his allies in
the north. He had in fact, as an English writer says, “completed what
he had to do over sea,”[911] as well as his share of the work could
be completed when that work as a whole was ruined by the disaster
of Bouvines. On September 21 he was again at Niort, on the 30th at
Saintes, and at some date between October 2 and 13 he sailed from La
Rochelle to England.[912]
To all outward seeming England was at peace. The Pope’s letter
containing his decision as to the conditions on which the interdict was
to be withdrawn had reached John on March 4, at the siege of Milécu,
and he had at once sent it on to Peter des Roches for delivery to the
legate Nicolas,[913] whom he had, before leaving England, empowered to
settle the matter in conjunction with William the Marshal. A council
was summoned at S. Paul’s; the Pope’s decision was communicated to the
assembled prelates and barons, and the legate asked for an account of
the sums already paid by the Crown in connexion with the interdict,
that he might know how much was still wanting to complete the forty
thousand marks which the Pope had fixed as the total of the indemnity.
When this was ascertained, it was agreed that the remainder--thirteen
thousand marks--should stand over on the security of the bishops of
Winchester and Norwich and of the king himself.[914] This last John
gave by letters patent issued from Angers on June 17[915]; and as
soon as these letters reached England, Nicolas solemnly withdrew the
interdict {June–July}.[916]
Serious grievances connected with it, however, still remained. A
special tax seems to have been levied throughout the realm, under the
title of “aid for the relaxation of the interdict”[917]--either to
pay the remainder of the indemnity to the bishops or to furnish the
tribute due to Rome. No indemnification was provided for the losses of
any one except the bishops; the multitude of lower clergy, the monks,
nuns and lay people of both sexes whose property had been seized or
damaged “on occasion of the interdict” were ignored in the settlement.
When they applied to the legate for redress, he told them that he had
no instructions to deal with their case, but that they might appeal to
the Pope.[918] For the great majority of individual victims, ruined
as they were, such an appeal was impracticable. The greater religious
houses might have been able to attempt it; but regulars and seculars
alike were apparently in too much dread of the king to attempt anything
at all. Within two months after his return to England John put forth a
demand to the clergy of at least one diocese, and to several religious
houses, in the shape of a courteous request that they would waive all
claim to the return of “those things which you gave to us in the time
of the interdict, and which are now described as having been taken
from you.” A form of renunciation or quit-claim was issued, evidently
intended for distribution throughout the country, to be signed by the
parties concerned.[919] John in fact seems to have again asked all the
English clergy, as he had asked them two years before, for a quit-claim
on the plea that their contributions had been voluntary; and though we
have no statement of the result, there seems no reason to doubt that in
1214, as in 1212, the audacious demand was complied with.
The weakness of the clergy was partly owing to the fact that they
were disappointed in their hopes of finding a champion in the legate.
At his coming he had been hailed as a reformer both in Church and
State[920]; but the year 1214 had scarcely begun when Archbishop
Stephen, after consultation with his suffragans,[921] addressed to him
a solemn protest, threatening to appeal against him to the Pope unless
he desisted from instituting prelates to vacant churches, contrary to
the rights of the metropolitan. Nicolas disregarded the protest, and
commissioned Pandulf--who had just gone back to Rome--to defend him
against the appeal.[922] For nine months Nicolas continued to exercise
his influence as he chose, without remonstrance from the Pope. He was
an instrument which could not be dispensed with until its special
work--the removal of the interdict--was done; moreover, the king was
on the Continent, and in the doubtful state of political affairs it
would scarcely have been prudent, during his absence, for Innocent
to withdraw his own representative from England. No sooner, however,
had John returned than Nicolas was summoned back to Rome.[923] It
is clear that Stephen’s protest and appeal had been really directed
not merely against legatine intrusion into his own metropolitical
rights, but also, and chiefly, against the legate’s interpretation of
the papal letter concerning elections to churches, and his action in
making himself the medium of royal interference in this matter.[924]
Stephen indeed seems to have looked upon Nicolas as the chief obstacle
to a settlement, between himself and the king, of this question of
elections; and a formal settlement, wholly in the Church’s favour,
was in fact made as soon as king and archbishop were once more face
to face. On November 21 John published a grant of free and canonical
election to all the churches in his realm.[925] This grant, like
every other acknowledgement made by the Crown, before or since, of
the Church’s right on this point, was of course destined never to be
anything but a dead letter. But it served John’s purpose. It saved him
from a fresh quarrel with the Church at a moment when the struggle with
the barons in which he had been engaged almost ever since his accession
to the Crown had entered upon a new phase and assumed a new character
which made it, alike for them and for him, a matter of life and death.
FOOTNOTES:
[700] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1210.
[701] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 202.
[702] _Brut y Tywysogion_, a. 1210.
[703] The _Brut_ (a. 1210) says that the host assembled at “Caerleon,”
and returned to England “about Whitsuntide.” It places the campaign
in 1210, but this is obviously a year too early. Cf. _Ann. Cambr._ a.
1211, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 203. John was at Chester (_i.e._
“Caerleon”) on May 16 and 17, 1211, the Tuesday and Wednesday before
Whitsunday; _Itin._ a. 13. The Itinerary shows that the expedition had
not taken place earlier than this; and from May 17 to August 29 there
is a blank.
[704] _Ann. Cambr._ a. 1211. Cf. _Brut_, a. 1210.
[705] _Brut_, a. 1210.
[706] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 203.
[707] July 8, R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 235. The _Brut_, _l.c._, says
he “returned to Wales about the calends of August.”
[708] Fourteen “or more,” according to _Ann. Cambr._ a. 1211.
[709] _Brut_, a. 1210. Cf. _Ann. Cambr._, _Margan._, _Tewkesb._,
_Winton._, _Waverl._ a. 1211; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 203, and R.
Wendover, vol. iii. p. 235. Roger says John was back at Whitchurch on
August 15.
[710] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 203.
[711] Cf. _Canterbury Chronicle_, in Stubbs’s Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp.
cvi., cvii., cxi., cxii.; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 106; R. Coggeshall,
p. 164; _Ann. Winton._, _Waverl._, and _Dunst._ a. 1210. The date comes
from _Itin._ a. 11.
[712] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1211.
[713] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 234, 235. He gives no date; but John
was in London, seemingly for the only time in 1210, at the end of
October; he dates from the Tower on October 27. _Itin._ a. 12.
[714] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1210. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 164, and _Ann.
Waverl._ a. 1210.
[715] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 235.
[716] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 12. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii.
p. 201, and R. Coggeshall, p. 163.
[717] Cf. _Ann. Winton._ and _Waverl._ a. 1211.
[718] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 235, 236.
[719] The second appendix to Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xv. No. 234--“Forma
quidem est talis” (printed also, under the heading “Instructiones
legato traditae,” in _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 109)--is obviously a
copy, enclosed in a letter of 1213, of the original commission issued
to Pandulf and Durand in 1211. See below, p. 179.
[720] The day comes from _Ann. Burton._ a. 1211, and we know from the
_Itinerary_, a. 13, that John was at Northampton on August 29. The
_Ann. Waverl._ date this conference a year too late, viz. 1212. Cf. W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 204; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 235, and _Ann.
Margan._, _Tewkesb._, _Winton._, _Oseney_, and _Worcester_, a. 1211.
[721] _Ann. Burton_, a. 1211. Cf. _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1212.
[722] _Ann. Burton_, a. 1211.
[723] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1211. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 164.
[724] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 238.
[725] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 206.
[726] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 104.
[727] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 238. Cf. _Chronn. Mailros_ and
_Lanercost_, a. 1212.
[728] _Itin._ a. 14.
[729] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 206.
[730] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1210.
[731] This inquest was taken _a. r._ 12 and 13 (_i.e._ May 1210–May
1212); _Red Book_, vol. ii. pp. 469–574.
[732] _A._ 13 John (May 1211–May 1212); _Red Book_, vol. ii. pp.
575–621.
[733] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1211.
[734] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 31, 37–9; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 163.
[735] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 70.
[736] Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 83 and 116. The account of
Richard’s testamentary dispositions in the former place is open to
two interpretations. Richard, says Roger, “divisit Johanni fratri suo
regnum Angliae ... et praecepit ut traderentur ei castella sua, et
tres partes” [in p. 116 Otto claims only “duas partes”] “thesauri sui,
et omnia baubella sua divisit Othoni nepoti suo regi Alamannorum; et
quartam partem thesauri sui praecepit servientibus suis et pauperibus
distribui.” Grammatically, there is nothing to show whether “tres
partes thesauri sui” is meant to be connected with “praecepit ut
traderentur ei [Johanni]” or with “divisit Othoni,” but common
sense strongly supports the former interpretation; however anxious
Richard may have been to help his nephew, he could not possibly mean
deliberately to leave his own chosen successor literally without a
penny. The actual wording of Richard’s will may, indeed, have been as
ambiguous as Roger’s summary of it, and Otto may have tried to take
advantage of its ambiguity. His claim to the earldoms seems somewhat
unreasonable; he had never really held the earldom of York, and it was
for that very reason that Richard had granted him Poitou; but it was
clearly preposterous to expect John to renew this latter grant after
Otto had accepted the German Crown.
[737] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 116; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 80.
[738] Leibnitz and Scheidt, _Origines Guelficae_, vol. iii. pp. 281,
282.
[739] _Rot. Chart._ p. 133 (1204); _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 11 b(1202),
40, 44 (1204), 48 (1205).
[740] The young countess of Holland, Ada, daughter and heiress of Count
Theodoric who died in 1203; see _Art de Vérifier les Dates_, vol.
xiv. pp. 261, 430. Her mother at once married her to Louis, count of
Los; her father’s brother, William, claimed Holland against the young
couple; he and Louis took opposite sides on the Imperial question,
William holding for Otto, Louis for Philip of Suabia; and eighteen
days after the wedding William drove Ada’s mother and husband out of
Holland, captured Ada herself, and sent her to England to be kept in
prison by John. She was still there in 1207, and was only released when
her husband had done homage to both John and Otto, _Rot. Pat._ vol. i.
p. 82, 82 b.
[741] Cf. M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. iii. p. 109, and _Rot. Claus._
vol. i. p. 82 b.
[742] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 77.
[743] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 200.
[744] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227.
[745] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 202; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 232, 233.
[746] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 202, 203.
[747] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 162. The date there given is a year
too late, as the English Rolls show.
[748] Boulogne, _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 104; _Rot. Claus._ vol. i.
pp. 116, 117; _Chart._ p. 186; _Pat._ p. 93; Bar and Limburg, _Pat._
p. 92 b; _Foedera_, p. 106; Flanders, _Pat._ pp. 93, 94; Louvain,
_Foedera_, pp. 106, 107.
[749] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 130 b.
[750] _Brut y Tywysogion_, a. 1211. Cf. _Ann. Cambr._ a. 1213.
[751] _Brut_, a. 1212.
[752] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 238; R. Coggeshall, p. 164.
[753] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 131, 131 b.
[754] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 94.
[755] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 121 b, 122.
[756] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 123 b.
[757] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 239, and _Itin._ a. 14.
[758] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207.
[759] Cf. _ib._ and R. Wendover, as above.
[760] W. Coventry, _l.c._
[761] R. Wendover, _l.c._
[762] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1212. See Note II. at end.
[763] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 239; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207. John
was at Nottingham September 9–15, and reached London on the 20th, after
passing through “Salvata,” Geddington, Northampton, and St. Albans,
_Itin._ a. 14. The assertion of the _Ann. Margan._ (a. 1211 for 1212)
that in his terror at the discovery of the meditated treason he “shut
himself up for fifteen days in Nottingham castle” is thus shown to be
false.
[764] _Itin._ a. 14.
[765] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 208. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 240;
_Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 122, 123; _Ann. Tewkesbury_, a. 1212, and _Chron.
Lanercost_, a. 1213.
[766] W. Coventry, _l.c._
[767] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 240.
[768] _Ib._ Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 208.
[769] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 248.
[770] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 241.
[771] _Ib._ pp. 238, 239.
[772] _Ib._ p. 240; R. Coggeshall, p. 165; W. Coventry, vol. ii.
p. 207. The entry in _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1211 about the razing of
Fitz-Walter’s castles and the cutting down of his woods is probably
misplaced, and should be referred to 1212. See Note II. at end.
[773] W. Coventry, _l.c._ R. Coggeshall, _l.c._, and _Ann. Dunst._ a.
1211 (for 1212) name as one of these victims a clerk called Geoffrey of
Norwich, whom M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 126 and _Chron. Maj._
vol. ii. p. 527, confuses with the archdeacon whose fate is related by
Roger of Wendover, vol. iii. p. 229. See above, p. 136.
[774] R. Coggeshall, p. 164.
[775] Cf. _Rot. Chart._ pp. 191 b, 192; _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1212; W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207; R. Coggeshall, p. 165, and M. Paris, _Hist.
Angl._ vol. ii. p. 132, and _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 537.
[776] W. Coventry, _l.c._
[777] From the tenour of these letters it is clear that neither of
the persons addressed had been in England recently. We must therefore
suppose that an order countermanding the muster at Chester had reached
the barons in Ireland before they set out to obey the royal summons,
and that for the muster at Nottingham their presence had not been
required.
[778] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 132 b (_a. r._ 14).
[779] Hunter, _Three Catalogues_, pp. 42, 43; Sweetman, _Cal. Doc.
Ireland_, vol. i. pp. 73, 74 (No. 448).
[780] Cf. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 126; Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xv. No.
234, and _Ann. Burton_, a. 1211, 1214.
[781] _Orig. Guelficae_, vol. iii. pp. 340, 341; W. Coventry, vol. ii.
pp. 204, 205.
[782] Martène, _Ampliss. Collectio_, vol. i. col. 1111. Cf. W. Armor.
_Gesta P. A._ cc. 158, 159.
[783] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 241, 242, and R. Coggeshall, p.
165.
[784] R. Wendover, _l.c._
[785] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 241, 242.
[786] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 165.
[787] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 104.
[788] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 243. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p.
209. W. Armor. _Philipp_. l. ix. v. 235, makes the day April 22.
“Culvertage” was the penalty for treason--forfeiture and perpetual
servitude.
[789] W. Coventry, _l.c._
[790] Writ given by R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 244.
[791] Writ in R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 245.
[792] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 245, 246. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1212
(evidently meant for 1213). John was at Canterbury May 4–6, 1213;
_Itin._ a. 14.
[793] John, who in his prosperous days made almost a parade of
disbelief in William’s loyalty, and delighted in straining it to the
uttermost by saying and doing everything he could think of to insult
and provoke William, nevertheless knew well that in moments of peril
William was the one counsellor to whose disinterestedness he could
safely trust, the one follower on whom he could count unreservedly, the
one friend whom he could not do without. So at the close of 1212 or
early in 1213 he had recalled the Marshal to his side, and proved his
confidence in him by giving him back his two sons who were in England
as hostages (_Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14492–598). The bishop of
Norwich had also come over from Ireland with five hundred knights and
other horsemen to join the muster (R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 245). It
tells something of the success of John’s measures for the settlement of
the Irish March that the simultaneous absence of the justiciar and the
Marshal, at such a crisis in the king’s fortunes, appears to have been
followed by no disturbance in the country which they thus left without
a ruler.
[794] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 246.
[795] See Petit-Dutaillis, _Hist. de Louis VIII._ pp. 37, 38.
[796] The Pope’s letter, the “Forma,” and the “Expositiones” are given
in Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xv. No. 234. The two former are also in
_Ann. Burton_, a. 1214. I think there can be no doubt that the three
documents together constitute the “quasi peremptorium mandatum” brought
by the three envoys mentioned in W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 209. Cf.
above, p. 160.
[797] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 242.
[798] R. Coggeshall, p. 166.
[799] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 210, and the letter patent in R.
Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 248–52, Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 76, and
_Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 111.
[800] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 77; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp.
252–4; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 111, 112. The oath of fealty is
given by R. Wendover, p. 255, and in _Foedera_, p. 112. Roger makes the
date Ascension Eve, but it was really the Wednesday in the week before
Rogation Sunday.
[801] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 252.
[802] “Addidit autem hoc ex suo,” W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 210.
[803] In a private letter which he wrote to the Pope on the same day,
John says he did it “inspirante gratia Sancti Spiritus, ad perpetuam
Ecclesiae pacem et exaltationem,” Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 78.
[804] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 79.
[805] “Salvis nobis et haeredibus nostris justitiis, libertatibus et
regalibus nostris,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 254.
[806] If we may believe Matthew Paris, the Pope was not the only
potentate to whom John about this time offered homage and tribute.
In Matthew’s _Gesta Abbatum S. Albani_, vol. i. pp. 236–40, and in
his _Chronica Majora_, vol. ii. pp. 559–62, is a long account of an
embassy which John is said to have sent to the emir of Morocco, Al
Moumenim (Mohammed al Nassir), “significans eidem quod se et regnum
suum libenter redderet eidem et dederet, et deditum teneret ab ipso,
si placeret ei, sub tributum. Necnon et legem Christianam, quam vanam
censuit, relinquens, legi Machomet fideliter adhaereret.” Matthew
proceeds to give a lively account of the ambassadors’ adventures,
and of the rebuke which the emir administered, through them, to the
sovereign who had sent them on so shameful an errand; all of which
Matthew professes to have heard from one of the envoys themselves.
Unluckily for him, he has given two contradictory dates for the
embassy. In the _Gesta Abbatum_ he represents it as taking place during
the Interdict; and Dr. Lingard has shown, by evidence drawn from
Matthew himself, that if it was sent at all, it must have been sent in
1212 (Lingard, _Hist. England_, vol. ii. p. 325; cf. M. Paris, _Chron.
Maj._ vol. ii. p. 566). But in _Chron. Maj._ Matthew puts it after the
reconciliation with Rome, representing it as despatched by John in his
disappointment at finding that transaction profit him less than he had
expected. The story of the interview between the envoys and the emir,
as Matthew tells it, has therefore a very strong appearance of having
been invented by that writer, as a kind of satire on John’s submission
to the Pope; though the mere fact of some overture on John’s part for
an alliance with the emir is neither impossible nor unlikely.
[807] In March 1215 William Mauclerc, John’s agent at Rome, writes
to John that there have come thither some envoys sent by the barons
to complain to the Pope, “cum ipse sit Dominus Angliae,” that John
refuses them their rights, etc., and he continues: “Supplicant autem
Domino Papae quod super his eis provideret, cum satis constet ei
quod ipsi audacter pro libertate Ecclesiae ad mandatum suum se vobis
opponerent, et quod vos annuum redditum Domino Papae et Ecclesiae
Romanae concessistis, et alios honores quos ei et Romanae Ecclesiae
exhibuistis, non sponte nec ex devotione, imo ex timore _et per eos
coactus_ fecistis.” _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 120. See Lingard,
_Hist. Eng._ vol. i. p. 333.
[808] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 135.
[809] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211.
[810] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211.
[811] _Ib._ p. 212. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 255, 256.
[812] W. Coventry and R. Wendover, _ll.cc._ Cf. _Hist. des Ducs_, pp.
125, 126; and R. Coggeshall, p. 167. The date, May 28, is given in
_Ann. Waverl._ a. 1213.
[813] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 256; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 112.
[814] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 257. Cf. W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc.
169, 170; and _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 99.
[815] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14612–40; _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 130 (the
dates are from this writer); R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 258; and W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211.
[816] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 131. Cf. _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 100.
[817] _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 131–3; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211; R.
Wendover, vol. iii. p. 258. Salisbury was wrecked on the Northumberland
coast on his return, but nothing was lost, _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv.
14649–58.
[818] W. Coventry, _l.c._; _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14641–6.
[819] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 259, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p.
212. John was at Porchester June 16, and at Bishopstoke June 17–20 and
June 29–July 1; _Itin._ a. 15. For Salisbury’s mission, see _Rot. Pat._
vol. i. pp. 100 b, 101 (June 22 and 26).
[820] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 259, 260; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p.
211; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 98 b, 99, 99 b, 100, 100 b; _Rot. Chart._
pp. 193 b, 194.
[821] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213, says “mense Junio”; R. Wendover,
vol. iii. p. 260, July 16; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 108, and _Ann.
Worc._ a. 1213, say July 9.
[822] R. Wendover, _l.c._ Cf. _Ann. Tewkesb._ and _Worc._ a. 1213, and
_Itin._ a. 15.
[823] The _Ann. Dunst._, which place the return of the exiles under a
wrong year, 1212, say the king met them “in monte juxta _Porecestre_.”
This is surely an error for Winchester. Nothing is more likely than
that John should have gone to meet them on S. Giles’s Hill.
[824] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 261; _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1212; and W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213.
[825] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 100, 100 b.
[826] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 99, 101 b; _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 146.
[827] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 261, 262.
[828] _Ib._ p. 261. Roger says John went to Portsmouth; but the
_Itinerary_ shows him hovering about between Studland, Corfe,
Dorchester, Poorstock, and Gillingham.
[829] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 261, 262.
[830] R. Coggeshall, p. 167.
[831] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 261; for dates see _Itin._ a. 15.
[832] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 141.
[833] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 262.
[834] _Itin._ a. 15.
[835] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 263.
[836] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 262, 263. John was at Northampton
August 28–31, at “Salvata” September 2, and at Nottingham September 3;
_Itin._ a. 15.
[837] _Itin._ a. 15.
[838] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1213.
[839] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 275, 276; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p.
115. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 214.
[840] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 276.
[841] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1212 (_i.e._ 1213). “Quae pax non tenuit, quia
promissa non fuerant hinc inde soluta,” adds the chronicler.
[842] Cf. R. Wendover, _l.c._, and _Itin._ a. 15.
[843] R. Wendover, _l.c._
[844] _Ib._ John’s order for this payment is in _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p.
106.
[845] Such an investigation by joint commissions was going on in the
diocese of Durham in January 1214, _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 106 b.
[846] York, Durham, Chester, Worcester, Exeter, Chichester, Whitby, S.
Edmund’s, S. Augustine’s at Canterbury, Reading, S. Benet’s at Hulme,
Battle, Ramsey, Peterborough, Cirencester, Eynsham (W. Coventry, vol.
ii. p. 213), Grimsby, Wherwell and Sherborne (_Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp.
147, 148, 150).
[847] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 146 b, 148, 150, 150 b.
[848] Date, November 1, 1213; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 277. Cf. W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216.
[849] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 107. The name of the abbey is there
printed as Evesham; but cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213.
[850] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 160.
[851] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 109, 109 b.
[852] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 114.
[853] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 103 b.
[854] _Ib._ p. 106 b: _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 156, 158.
[855] _Rot. Pat._ p. 100.
[856] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 103 b.
[857] _Ib._ p. 102.
[858] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 271.
[859] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 558.
[860] M. Paris, _l.c._ p. 559, makes John repeat on the death of
Geoffrey Fitz-Peter the remark which he has previously recorded as
having been made by the king on the death of Hubert Walter. See above,
p. 113.
[861] _First Report on Dignity of a Peer_ (1826), vol. ii. appendix i.
p. 2, from Close Roll 15 John; see Hardy’s edition of the Close Rolls,
vol. i. p. 165. In _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 117, the document is
printed with an obviously wrong date.
[862] _Itin._ a. 15.
[863] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 278.
[864] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 168; _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 139–41, and
_Itin._ a. 15. The Flemish authority says “li cuens ... li fist houmage
de la tierre ke il devoit avoir en Engletierre”; the English chronicler
says the homage was for “all Flanders.” Unluckily there seems to be no
charter extant to settle the point.
[865] R. Coggeshall, p. 168. Raymond seems to have been on his way
home, and travelling at John’s expense, in January 1214; _Rot. Pat._
vol. i. pp. 106 b, 108 b.
[866] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 160.
[867] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 109 b.
[868] _Ib._ p. 110, 110 b.
[869] It is a question whether this means the queen’s child so named,
or that elder son Richard who figures actively in his father’s struggle
with the barons a year or two later.
[870] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 280; R. Coggeshall, p. 163; and
_Itin._ a. 15.
[871] R. Coggeshall, p. 168.
[872] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 280. John was at La Rochelle February
15–20, _Itin._ a. 15.
[873] _Itin._ a. 15.
[874] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 111.
[875] _Ib._ p. 111 b.
[876] _Itin._ a. 15.
[877] _Rot. Pat._ p. 112 b.
[878] _Itin._ a. 15.
[879] _Rot. Pat._ _l.c._
[880] _Itin._ a. 15.
[881] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 99–115. Cf. Peter of Blois’s
complaint (_Ep._ xli.) of the impossibility of tracking the movements
of Henry II.
[882] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 280, 281. The treaty with the
Lusignans is in _Rot. Chart._ p. 197 b; it has no date.
[883] _Itin._ a. 16.
[884] M. Petit-Dutaillis (_Hist. de Louis VIII._ p. 48) thinks this
affair at Nantes occurred “dans les premiers jours de juin.” The only
blank days in John’s itinerary during this month are June 2–4, 8, 9 and
13. From the relative positions of the places where he was on the other
days, I cannot but think that the 13th is the most likely date.
[885] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 285, 286. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 169;
W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 172; and _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 143.
[886] _Itin._ a. 16.
[887] M. Petit-Dutaillis (_Louis VIII._ p. 49) remarks that the modern
post-office spelling, “La Roche-aux-Moines,” is wrong, the Latin form
being “Rupes Monachi,” not “Monachorum.”
[888] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 178.
[889] Dates from _Itin._ a. 16.
[890] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 286.
[891] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 202–18.
[892] R. Wendover, _l.c._
[893] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 243–65.
[894] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 179. Cf. Itin. a. 16.
[895] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 287, and M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._
vol. ii. p. 150.
[896] _Rot. Pat._ p. 118 b.
[897] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 288–91; M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._
vol. ii. p. 151; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc. 181–97; R. Coggeshall, p.
169 (wrong date), and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216.
[898] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 151.
[899] R. Coggeshall, p. 170; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216.
[900] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 210 b.
[901] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 139.
[902] R. Coggeshall, p. 167. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 214.
[903] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 124.
[904] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 204.
[905] _Foedera_, _l.c._
[906] _Itin._ a. 16.
[907] _Rot. Pat._ p. 140 b.
[908] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 204.
[909] R. Coggeshall, p. 170.
[910] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 125. There is a mutilated version of
this document in R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 292, 293.
[911] “Expletis agendis suis in partibus transmarinis, rediit in
Angliam,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 293.
[912] _Itin._ a. 16; for the last date see _Memorials of S. Edmund’s_,
vol. ii. p. 92.
[913] _Rot. Pat._ p. 111 b.
[914] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 283, 284. The terms are stated in a
very confused way, both in the Pope’s letter (given _l.c._; also in
_Rot. Chart._ pp. 208, 209), in a letter of Earl William of Ferrars
(_Rot. Pat._ p. 139; Ferrars was one of those who swore as sureties
for the king), and in that of John himself (_Rot. Chart._ p. 199); but
a comparison of the three documents with Roger’s own account of the
matter makes it tolerably clear that Nicolas was authorized to raise
the interdict as soon as he had obtained security for the payment of
twelve thousand marks a year, in half-yearly instalments, till the
total of forty thousand should be complete.
[915] _Rot. Chart._ p. 199.
[916] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 284, makes the date June 29; W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 217, R. Coggeshall, p. 169, and _Ann. Waverl._ a.
1214, make it July 2.
[917] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 208, 208 b, 209.
[918] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 284, 285.
[919] _Rot. Pat._ pp. 124, 140 b, 141.
[920] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 215.
[921] At Dunstable, “after the octave of Epiphany,” R. Wendover, vol.
iii. p. 278.
[922] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 278, 279, says that Nicolas, with the
king’s assent, sent Pandulf specially to plead for him at Rome against
the archbishop; but Pandulf’s approaching departure over sea “in
nuncium nostrum” was announced by John on January 4 (_Rot. Claus._ vol.
i. p. 141), ten days at least before Stephen’s appeal was made or even
threatened.
[923, 924] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 278, 279, and R. Coggeshall,
p. 170.
[925] _Statutes of the Realm_, Charters of Liberties, p. 5. A copy of
this grant, with the date January 15, is printed in _Foedera_, vol. i.
pt. i. pp. 126–7.