represents Geoffrey as entertaining some hope of surviving
and succeeding both his younger brothers; but this is a very
different thing from plotting against them during their lives.
See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lxvi. As it
turned out, the first part, at any rate, of this dream of
Geoffrey’s was not so mad as it seemed, for he died only four
years before John.
[1515] He was ordained priest September 23, 1189. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 88.
[1516] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 146. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 74.
[1517] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 88, 91, 99. Rog. Howden as
above, pp. 17, 18, 27. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 8
(Brewer, vol. iv. pp. 377, 378).
[1518] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 100. Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above
(p. 379).
[1519] Gir. Cambr. as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 106.
Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 15.
According to Geoffrey’s own account, he followed his brother as far
as Vézelay, and there won from him a remission of this vow.[1520] It
is certain that by April 1191 Richard had so far changed his mind
again as to be desirous of Geoffrey’s speedy consecration. The Pope’s
consent was still lacking; and the negotiations for obtaining this
were undertaken by the person who, from Geoffrey’s very birth, had
been his most determined enemy--Queen Eleanor. When she went from
Messina to Rome to plead his cause with Clement III. or his successor
Celestine,[1521] it is plain that natural feeling gave way to motives
of policy. She could now see that an archbishop of York might become
very useful in England, in holding the balance between Hugh of Durham
and William of Ely. His canonical authority and personal influence
might furnish, not indeed a counterpoise, but at least a check to the
now unlimited powers of the legate. On the other hand, it was the long
vacancy of York which more than anything else had tended to Hugh’s
exaltation. For ten years the bishop of Durham, with no metropolitan
over him, had virtually been himself metropolitan of northern England.
He strongly resented the filling of the vacant see, and had actually
obtained from Clement III. a privilege of exemption from its
jurisdiction.[1522] If the archbishop of York could be reinstated in
his proper constitutional position, his own interests would lead him to
use it for those of the kingdom and the king.
[1520] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 11 (p. 382).
[1521] Rog. Howden as above, p. 100. The change in the Papacy
must have occurred while she was there.
[1522] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 146.
Geoffrey’s qualifications and disqualifications for such a task may
be very easily summed up. He had the Angevin fearlessness, energy,
persistence and thoroughness, with a fair share of the versatile
capabilities of the family; he had all their impetuosity, but very
little of their wariness and tact. Mingled with the Angevin fire, there
seems to have run in his veins the blood, and with it the spirit,
of a totally different race. If we may credit on such a point the
gossip of his father’s court, Geoffrey was through his mother a child
of the people--seemingly the English people--and of its very lowest
class.[1523] This consideration has more interest at a later stage of
Geoffrey’s career, when he stands forth as a champion of constitutional
liberty. Until then, there is, so far as we can see, no evidence of any
special sympathy between him and the English people. Yet the plebeian
and probably English element in him existed, or was believed to exist;
and if it did not become, as it easily might have done, an important
element in his political career, it was at any rate not unlikely to
have exercised some influence upon his character.
[1523] W. Map, _De Nugis Cur._, dist. v. c. 6 (Wright, pp.
228–235). Walter is the only writer who tells us anything about
Geoffrey’s mother; as he does not say she was a foreigner, it
seems most probable that he looked upon her as an Englishwoman.
The name which he gives to her--“Ykenai” or “Hikenai”--tells
nothing either way, in itself. But Mr. Dimock (in his preface
to the seventh volume of Gerald’s works, p. xxxvii) throws
doubt upon Walter’s whole account of her except her name,
and suggests that she may have belonged to a knightly family
of _Akeny_ (i.e. Acquigny) in Normandy. This, however, is a
question to be investigated by a biographer of Geoffrey or
a student of his later political career rather than by an
historian of the Angevin kings. The doubts which W. Map tries
to throw upon his connexion with them are probably affected,
and clearly unfounded. Few specimens of the Angevin race are
more unmistakeable than Geoffrey; one might perhaps add, few
more creditable.
Eleanor’s mission to Rome succeeded. Geoffrey’s election and his claim
to the obedience of the bishop of Durham were both confirmed by Pope
Celestine;[1524] he was consecrated at Tours by Archbishop Bartholomew
on August 18, and received his pall on the same day.[1525] He at once
put himself in communication with John, to secure a protector on his
return to his see;[1526] for William of Longchamp, having had no
notice from Richard of the remission of Geoffrey’s vow of absence,
refused to believe in it,[1527] and had not only issued orders for the
archbishop’s arrest as soon as he should land in England,[1528] but
had agreed with the countess of Flanders that no Flemish ship should
be allowed to give him a passage. The countess, however, evaded her
agreement by letting him sail from Wissant in an English boat.[1529]
He landed at Dover on Holy Cross day,[1530] having changed his clothes
to avoid recognition.[1531] The constable of Dover, Matthew de Clères,
was absent; his wife Richenda was a sister of William of Longchamp;
her men-at-arms surrounded the archbishop the moment he touched the
shore, recognized him in spite of his disguise, and strove to arrest
him, but he managed to free himself from their hands and make his way
to the priory of S. Martin, just outside the town. Here for five days
Richenda’s followers vainly endeavoured to blockade and starve him
into surrender.[1532] On the fifth day a band of armed men rushed into
the priory-church, and in the chancellor’s name ordered Geoffrey to
quit the country at once. Geoffrey, seated by the altar, clad in his
pontifical robes and with his archiepiscopal cross in his hand, set
them and their chancellor at defiance.[1533] They dragged him out of
the church by the hands and feet; and as nothing would induce him to
mount a horse which they brought for him, they dragged him on, still in
the same array, still clinging to his cross and excommunicating them
as they went, all through the town to the castle, where they flung him
into prison.[1534]
[1524] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 209. See Celestine’s letter
(date, May 11) in _Monasticon Angl._, vol. vi. pt. iii. col.
1188, and Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lxvii, note
2.
[1525] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 96. Cf. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 209; Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 13
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 384). Will. Newb., always hostile to
Geoffrey, declares that “ordine præpostero” he got his pallium
before he was consecrated; l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. pp.
339, 340).
[1526] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 34.
[1527] His disbelief was evidently shared by Roger of Howden
(Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 138); but Roger’s authority, the
treasurer, does not commit himself to any opinion on the
subject. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 210.
[1528] See the chancellor’s writ--dated Preston, July 30--in
R. Diceto as above, and Gir. Cambr. as above, l. ii. c. 1 (p.
389); and cf. Ric. Devizes and _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1529] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 388). Cf. _Gesta Ric._ as
above. The countess--Isabel of Portugal, second wife of Count
Philip--was governing her husband’s territories during his
absence on crusade, where he died.
[1530] R. Diceto as above, p. 97. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 504.
[1531] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1532] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 388–390). Cf. R. Diceto and
_Gesta Ric._ as above, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett,
vol. i. p. 340).
[1533] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv.
p. 391).
[1534] _Ibid._ (pp. 391, 392). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp.
35, 36. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 97. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 111. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 505. Will.
Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 340).
This outrage roused up all parties alike in Church and state. England
had had quite enough of persecuted and martyred archbishops. Protests
and remonstrances came pouring in upon the chancellor from the
most opposite quarters:--from the treasurer and bishop of London,
Richard Fitz-Nigel[1535]--from the aged bishop of Norwich, John of
Oxford,[1536] and from the Canterbury chapter,[1537] both of whom had
had only too much experience, in different ways, of the disasters which
might result from such violence to an archbishop. The most venerated
of living English prelates, S. Hugh of Lincoln, at once excommunicated
Richenda, her husband and all her abettors, with lighted candles at
Oxford.[1538] John remonstrated most vehemently of all,[1539] and his
remonstrances procured Geoffrey’s release,[1540] but only on condition
that he would go straight to London and there remain till the case
between him and the chancellor could be tried by an assembly of bishops
and barons.[1541] This of course satisfied nobody. John had no mind
to lose his opportunity of crushing his enemy once for all. From
Lancaster, where he was laying his plans with the help of Bishop Hugh
of Coventry--a nephew of the old arch-plotter Arnulf of Lisieux--he
hurried to Marlborough, and thence sent out summons to all the great
men whom he thought likely to help him against the chancellor. He
was not disappointed. The co-justiciars hastened up from the various
shires where they were apparently busy with their judicial or financial
visitations--William the Marshal from Gloucestershire, William Bruère
from Oxfordshire, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter from Northamptonshire; the
bishops were represented by Godfrey of Winchester and Reginald of Bath,
and the sovereign himself by Walter of Rouen; S. Hugh of Lincoln joined
the train as it passed through Oxford to Reading. From Reading John
sent to call his half-brother to his side. Geoffrey, who was beginning
to be looked upon and to look upon himself as something like another
S. Thomas, had made a sort of triumphal progress from Dover to London;
tied by his parole, he was obliged to ask the chancellor’s consent to
his acceptance of John’s invitation, and only gained it on condition of
returning within a given time.[1542]
[1535] R. Diceto as above. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 2 (pp. 393,
394).
[1536] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 394).
[1537] Gerv. Cant. as above, pp. 505, 506.
[1538] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 393).
[1539] _Ibid._ (p. 394). _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 211. Rog.
Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 139.
[1540] On September 26; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 97. Cf.
Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 4 (p. 395), Gerv. Cant. as above, p.
507, and Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 36.
[1541] Gir. Cambr. as above.
[1542] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. cc. 4, 5 (Brewer, vol.
iv. pp. 395–397).
The chancellor meanwhile was at Norwich;[1543] and thither John and
the justiciars had already sent him a summons to appear before them
and answer for his conduct towards both Geoffrey of York and Hugh
of Durham, at an assembly to be held at the bridge over the Lodden,
between Reading and Windsor, on Saturday October 5.[1544] William
retorted by a counter-summons to all who had joined the count of
Mortain to forsake him as an usurper and return to their obedience to
the king’s chosen representative.[1545] He hurried, however, to Windsor
in time for the proposed meeting; but when the Saturday morning came,
the earls of Arundel, Warren and Norfolk appeared at the trysting-place
in his stead, pleading ill-health as an excuse for his absence.[1546]
As Saturday was accounted an unlucky day for contracts or settlements
of any kind,[1547] no one regretted the delay; John and the barons,
sitting amid a ring of spectators in the meadows by the Lodden, spent
the day in discussing all the complaints against the chancellor, and
also, apparently, in looking through such of the Norman primate’s
bundle of royal letters as he chose to shew them, and deliberating
which would be most appropriate to the present state of affairs. On one
point all were agreed; the chancellor must be put down at once.[1548]
Early next morning he tried to bribe John into reconciliation, but in
vain.[1549] At the high mass in Reading parish church the whole body of
bishops lighted their candles and publicly excommunicated all who had
been, whether by actual participation, command or consent, concerned in
Archbishop Geoffrey’s arrest;[1550] and at nightfall the chancellor was
compelled to swear that, come what might, he would be ready to stand
his trial at the bridge of Lodden on the morrow.[1551]
[1543] _Ib._ cc. 2, 5 (pp. 393, 394, 397).
[1544] _Ib._ c. 5 (p. 397). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 37,
giving the date, which is confirmed by one of the summons--that
addressed to the bishop of London--given by R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. ii. p. 98. Cf. also _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212.
[1545] Gir. Cambr. as above.
[1546] _Ib._ c. 6 (p. 398). Cf. R. Diceto, Ric. Devizes and
_Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1547] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 98.
[1548] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 6 (Brewer, vol. iv.
pp. 398–401).
[1549] _Ib._ c. 7 (p. 402).
[1550] _Ibid._ R. Diceto as above.
[1551] Gir. Cambr. as above.
Scarcely had he set out on the Monday morning when he was met by a
report that his enemies were marching upon London.[1552] The report was
true in substance; John and the barons, instead of waiting for him at
the Lodden bridge, crossed it, and then divided their forces into two
bodies; the smaller, consisting of the bishops and barons with John
himself, proceeded towards Windsor to meet the chancellor; the larger,
comprising the men-at-arms and the servants in charge of the baggage,
was sent on by the southern road to Staines.[1553] Such a movement was
quite enough to justify William in hurrying back to Windsor and thence
on to London as fast as horses could carry him.[1554] Before he could
reach it he met John’s men-at-arms coming up by the other road from
Staines; a skirmish took place, in which John’s justiciar Roger de
Planes was mortally wounded, but his followers seem to have had the
best of the fight,[1555] although they could not prevent the chancellor
from making his way safe into London. Here he at once called a meeting
of the citizens in the Guildhall, and endeavoured to secure their
support against John.[1556] He found, however, a strong party opposed
to himself. On the last day of July[1557]--three days after the second
award between John and William at Winchester--the citizens of London
had profited by the king’s absence and his representative’s humiliation
to set up a _commune_. They knew very well that, as a contemporary
writer says, neither King Henry nor King Richard would have sanctioned
such a thing at any price;[1558] and they knew even better still that
Richard’s chancellor would never countenance it for a moment. With
John they might have a chance, and they were not disposed to lose
it by shutting their gates in his face at the bidding of William of
Longchamp. William, seeing that his cause was lost in the city, shut
himself up in the Tower.[1559]
[1552] _Ibid._ c. 8 (pp. 402, 403). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson),
p. 37. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212.
[1553] Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 403, 404), and R. Diceto
as above, p. 99. Ric. Devizes, as above, says plainly what the
other writers leave us to guess, that these followers were
meant to go on to London.
[1554] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 403). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson),
p. 38. R. Diceto and _Gesta Ric._ as above. Cf. Will. Newb., l.
iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 341, 342).
[1555] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 99. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 212. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 8
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 404).
[1556] Gir. Cambr. as above. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p.
38.
[1557] “Ipsâ die”--the day on which Philip of France set out
homeward from Acre. Ric. Devizes, p. 53.
[1558] _Ib._ pp. 53, 54. Yet Richard had once said that he
would sell London altogether, if he could find anybody who
would give him his price for it. _Ib._ p. 10, and Will. Newb.,
l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 306).
[1559] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38. R. Diceto as above.
_Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 212, 218. Will. Newb. as above,
c. 17 (p. 342).
By this time John and his companions were at the gates; a short parley
ended in their admittance.[1560] Next morning barons and citizens
came together in S. Paul’s.[1561]. One after another the chancellor’s
victims, with the archbishop of York at their head, set forth their
grievances.[1562] Archbishop Walter of Rouen and William the Marshal
then produced the king’s letter of February 20, addressed to the
Marshal, and accrediting Walter to him and his fellow-justiciars,
and bidding them, in case of any failure of duty on the chancellor’s
part, follow Walter’s direction in all things.[1563] John and the
barons agreed to act in accordance with these instructions; they won
the assent of the citizens by swearing to maintain the commune;[1564]
the whole assembly then swore fealty to Richard, and to John as his
destined successor.[1565] According to one account they went a step
further: they appointed John regent of the kingdom, and granted him
the disposal of all the royal castles except three, which were to be
left to the chancellor.[1566] Upon the latter they now set out to
enforce their decision at the sword’s point. His forces were more
than sufficient to defend the Tower; they were in fact too numerous;
they had had no time to revictual the place, they were painfully
overcrowded, and before twenty-four hours were over they found their
position untenable.[1567] On the Wednesday William tried to bribe John
into abandoning the whole enterprise, and he very nearly succeeded;
Geoffrey of York and Hugh of Coventry, however, discovered what was
going on, and remonstrated so loudly that John was obliged to drop
the negotiation and continue the siege.[1568] In the afternoon, at
the chancellor’s own request, four bishops and four earls went to
speak with him in the Tower.[1569] Five days of intense excitement
had so exhausted his feeble frame that when they told him what had
passed at the meeting on the previous day, he dropped senseless at
their feet, and when brought to himself could at first do nothing but
implore their sympathy and mediation.[1570] The brutal insolence of
Hugh of Coventry,[1571] however, seems to have stung him into his
wonted boldness again. With flashing eyes he told them that the day
of reckoning was yet to come, when they and their new lord would have
to account for their treason with Richard himself; and he sent them
away with a positive refusal to surrender either his castles or his
seal.[1572] Late at night, however, as he lay vainly endeavouring
to gain a little rest, his friends came and implored him to abandon
the useless struggle with fate; and at last his brother Osbert and
some others wrung from him an unwilling permission to go and offer
themselves as hostages for his submission on the morrow.[1573]
[1560] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 404).
[1561] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38, says “in ecclesiâ S.
Pauli”; R. Diceto as above, “in capitulo”; the _Gesta Ric._ as
above, p. 213, and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 140, say
“in atrio.”
[1562] Ric. Devizes as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 213,
218.
[1563] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 213, 218.
[1564] _Ib._ p. 213. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 99.
[1565] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 214.
[1566] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 37, 38.
[1567] Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 342).
[1568] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv.
p. 406).
[1569] Gerald (_ib._ p. 405), says “quartâ vero feriâ.” Ric.
Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39, says “Dies ille nefastus declinabat
ad vesperam,” which, taken in connexion with what precedes,
ought to mean Tuesday evening; but he seems to have lost
count of the days just here. It is he alone who mentions the
earls; while it is Gerald alone who gives the names of the
bishops--London, Lincoln, Winchester and Coventry.
[1570] Cf. Ric. Devizes as above, and Gir. Cambr. as above, who
tries to colour this scene differently.
[1571] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 405, 406).
[1572] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39.
[1573] _Ib._ p. 40. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 406).
On the Thursday morning the barons assembled in the fields east of the
Tower,[1574] and there William of Longchamp went forth to meet them.
The instant he appeared Hugh of Coventry stepped forward, recited the
whole indictment against him, and pronounced with brutal bluntness the
sentence of the assembly.[1575] William was to be deposed from all
secular authority, to keep nothing but his bishopric and the castles
of Dover, Cambridge and Hereford; he must give hostages for his future
good behaviour; then let him begone wherever he would. The assembly
broke into a chorus of approval which seemed intended to give William
no chance of reply; but his dauntless spirit had by this time regained
its mastery over his physical weakness; he stood quietly till they had
all talked themselves out, and then they had to listen in their turn.
He denied every one of the charges against him; he refused to recognize
either the moral justice or the legal validity of his deposition;
he agreed to surrender the castles, because he no longer had power
to hold them, but he still lifted up his protest, as King Richard’s
lawful chancellor and justiciar, against all the proceedings and the
very existence of the new ministry.[1576] Walter of Rouen was at once
proclaimed justiciar in his stead.[1577] The keys of the Tower and
of Windsor castle, and the hostages, were delivered up next morning,
and William was then allowed to withdraw to Bermondsey, whence on
the following day he proceeded to Dover.[1578] Thence, apparently in
a desperate hope that his men might yet be able to hold the castles
till he could gather means to relieve them, he twice attempted to
escape over sea, first in the disguise of a monk, then in that of a
pedlar-woman. His lameness, however, and his ignorance of English were
fatal to his chances of flight; he was detected, dragged back into the
town, and shut up in prison till all the castles were surrendered. Then
he was set at liberty, and sailed for Gaul on October 29.[1579]
[1574] Ric. Devizes (as above). Gir. Cambr. as above. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100.
[1575] Ric. Devizes as above.
[1576] _Ib._ pp. 40–42. Cf. Gir. Cambr. and R. Diceto as above;
_Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 214; and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17
(Howlett, vol. i. p. 341).
[1577] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 213. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 18
(Howlett, vol. i. p. 344).
[1578] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100. Gir. Cambr. _Vita
Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 407). Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), p. 42.
[1579] Ric. Devizes as above. R. Diceto as above, pp. 100, 101.
Gir. Cambr. as above, cc. 12, 13 (pp. 410–413). _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 219, 220. Will. Newb. as above, c. 17 (p. 343).
The date comes from R. Diceto.
His opponents, however, were not rid of him yet. The king was now
practically out of reach of his remonstrances and appeals for
succour;[1580] but the Pope was not. William was a bishop; and the
harshness with which he had been treated enabled him now to pose in his
turn as a consecrated victim of profane violence. Celestine III. warmly
took up his cause; he distinctly acknowledged him as legate, whether
with or without a formal renewal of his commission;[1581] and on
December 2 he issued a brief addressed to the English bishops, bidding
them excommunicate all who had taken part in William’s deposition, and
put their lands under interdict till he should be reinstated.[1582]
William, as legate, followed this up by excommunicating twenty-six
of his chief enemies by name, with the archbishop of Rouen at their
head, and, with the Pope’s sanction, threatening to treat John in like
manner, if he did not amend before Quinquagesima.[1583] The bishops,
however, took no notice of his letters, and the justiciars retorted by
sequestrating his see;[1584] they all held him bound by the sentences
pronounced against him at Reading and at London for his persecution
of Geoffrey of York, and their view was upheld by the suffragans of
Rouen, who all treated him as excommunicate.[1585] Geoffrey was now the
highest ecclesiastical authority in England; but he was not the man
to rule the English Church. He had more than enough to do in ruling
his own chief suffragan. As soon as he was enthroned at York,[1586] he
summoned Hugh of Durham to come and make his profession of obedience;
Hugh, who having been reinstated in his earldom of Northumberland[1587]
felt himself again more than a match for his metropolitan, ignored
the summons, whereupon Geoffrey excommunicated him.[1588] This did
not deter John from keeping Christmas at Howden with the bishop;
in consequence of which John himself was for a while treated as
excommunicate by his half-brother.[1589] The momentary coalition,
formed solely to crush the chancellor, had in fact already split into
fragments. The general administration, however, went on satisfactorily
under the new justiciar’s direction, and his influence alone--for
Eleanor was still on the continent[1590]--sufficed to keep John out of
mischief throughout the winter.
[1580] He had written to complain of John’s insubordination,
but Richard did not get the letter till six months after the
writer’s fall. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 333.
[1581] See _Epp. Cant._ (Stubbs), introd. p. lxxxiii, note 1.
[1582] Letter of Celestine III. in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp.
221, 222.
[1583] Letter of William “bishop of Ely, legate and
chancellor,” _ib._ pp. 222–224; and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol.
iii. pp. 152–154.
[1584] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 225.
[1585] _Ib._ p. 221. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 43.
[1586] On All Saints’ day [1191]. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l.
ii. c. 11 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 410).
[1587] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39.
[1588] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 225. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. pp. 168, 169. See the excellent summary of this
affair in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 27 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 371,
372).
[1589] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 235, 236.
[1590] She kept Christmas at Bonneville. _Ib._ p. 235. Rog.
Howden as above, p. 179.
Richard’s continental dominions had thus far been at peace--a peace
doubly secured by the presence of Eleanor and the absence of Philip of
France. Shortly before Christmas 1191, however, Philip returned to his
kingdom.[1591] In January 1192 he called the seneschal and barons of
Normandy to a conference, and demanded from them, on the strength of a
document which he shewed to them as the treaty made between himself
and Richard at Messina, the restitution of his sister Adela and her
dower-castles in the Vexin, as well as the counties of Eu and Aumale.
The seneschal, rightly suspecting the paper to be a forgery, answered
that he had no instructions from Richard on the subject, and would
give up neither the lands nor the lady.[1592] Philip threatened war,
and all Richard’s constables prepared for defence.[1593] Meanwhile,
Philip offered to John the investiture of all Richard’s continental
dominions, if he would accept Adela’s hand with them.[1594] That John
had a wife already was an obstacle which troubled neither the French
king nor John himself. He was quite ready to accept the offer; but
meanwhile it reached his mother’s ears, and she hurried to England to
stop him.[1595] Landing at Portsmouth on Quinquagesima Sunday,[1596]
she found him on the point of embarking; the archbishop of Rouen
and the other justiciars gladly welcomed her back to her former
post of regent, and joined with her in forbidding John to leave the
country, under penalty of having all his estates seized in the king’s
name.[1597] They then held a series of councils, at Windsor, Oxford,
London and Winchester;[1598] in that of London the barons renewed their
oath of fealty to the king, but to pacify John they were obliged to do
the like to him as heir,[1599] and the immediate consequence was that
he persuaded the constables of Windsor and Wallingford to surrender
their castles into his hands.[1600] William of Longchamp thought his
opportunity had come. He managed to gain Eleanor’s ear and to bribe
John;[1601] both connived at his return to Dover, and thence he sent
up his demand for restoration to a council gathered in London towards
the close of Lent.[1602] It seems plain that he had won the favour of
the queen; for the justiciars, whose original purpose in meeting had
been to discuss the misdoings of John, now saw themselves obliged to
fetch John himself from Wallingford to support them, as they expected,
in their resistance to the chancellor’s demands. To their dismay John
told them plainly that he was on the point of making alliance with
his old enemy for a consideration of seven hundred pounds.[1603] They
saw that their only chance was to outbid William. They gave John two
thousand marks out of the royal treasury;[1604] Walter of Rouen helped
to persuade the queen-mother,[1605] and the chancellor was bidden to
depart out of the land.[1606]
[1591] Will. Armor. _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc.
Scriptt._, vol. v.), p. 76.
[1592] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 236. Cf. Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), p. 56. It is certain that Philip told and acted
a downright lie; for the treaty of Messina is extant, and its
main provisions are these: Richard shall be bound to surrender
Adela only within one month after his own return to Gaul, and
the whole Norman Vexin, including its castles, shall remain
to him and his heirs male for ever. Only in case of his death
without male heir is it to revert to the French Crown; and
as for Aumale and Eu, there is not a word about them. Rymer,
_Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 54.
[1593] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55.
[1594] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1595] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 57.
[1596] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55. This was
February 11 [1192].
[1597] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 237.
[1598] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 57.
[1599] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
p. 187.
[1600] Ric. Devizes as above. In Rog. Howden (as above), p.
204, the betrayal of these castles is placed a year later.
Roger’s account of the first few months of 1193 has, however,
somewhat the look of a repetition of the history of 1192, and
his story is much less consistent and circumstantial than
Richard’s, which I have therefore ventured to follow.
[1601] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 239. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 188. Cf. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 14
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 413); Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 56; and
Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 512.
[1602] Gir. Cambr., as above, says he landed about April 1,
_i.e._ the Wednesday before Easter. But the other writers seem
to place this council soon after Mid-Lent. Gerv. Cant., as
above, says the chancellor came “mediante mense Martio.”
[1603] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 58, 59.
[1604] “2000 marks, £500 of which were to be raised from the
chancellor’s estates” is Bishop Stubbs’s interpretation (_Rog.
Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xc.) of _Gesta Ric._, p. 239, and
Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 59.
[1605] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1606] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes as above. Gir. Cambr. as above (p.
415). Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 18 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 345,
346). According to the first authority, William sailed again on
Maunday Thursday, April 2.
Shortly afterwards, two cardinal-legates arrived in France to settle
his dispute with the archbishop of Rouen. When they attempted to enter
Normandy, the seneschal refused them admittance and shut the gates of
Gisors in their faces, pleading that the subjects of an English king
were forbidden by ancient custom to admit legates into any part of
his dominions without his consent. The legates on this excommunicated
the seneschal and laid all Normandy under interdict.[1607] William
had done the same to his own diocese before leaving England.[1608]
Archbishop Walter, the English justiciars, even the queen-mother,
were all at their wits’ end: Philip was openly threatening to invade
the Norman duchy; the obstacle which had prevented him until now--the
unwillingness of the French barons to attack the territories of a
crusader[1609]--would be considerably lessened by the interdict; the
only person who could be found in England capable of undertaking a
negotiation with the legates was Hugh of Durham; but Hugh declined
to go till his own quarrel with his metropolitan was settled,[1610]
and this was not accomplished till the middle of October.[1611] Then
indeed he went to France, and succeeded in obtaining the removal of the
interdict.[1612] But in other quarters the prospect grew no brighter.
Aquitaine, held in check for a while by the presence of its duchess,
had risen as soon as she was out of reach. Count Ademar of Angoulême
marched into Poitou with a large body of horse and foot; taken prisoner
by the Poitevins, he appealed to the French king for deliverance.[1613]
A revolt of the Gascon barons was with difficulty suppressed by the
seneschal, assisted by young Sancho of Navarre,[1614] brother of
Richard’s queen; and the victors rashly followed up their success by a
raid upon Toulouse, which, though it went unpunished for the moment,
could only lead to further mischief.[1615] In England John was still
defying the justiciars; and they dared not proceed to extremities with
him, for they now saw before them an imminent prospect of having to
acknowledge him as their king.
[1607] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 246, 247. Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), pp. 43, 44.
[1608] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 15 (Brewer, vol.
iv. p. 414). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 42, 43, puts this in
the previous October.
[1609] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 236. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 187.
[1610] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 247.
[1611] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 513. Rog. Howden as
above, pp. 170 note, 172.
[1612] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 250.
[1613] Chron. S. Albin. a. 1192 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 50).
The sequel of this story, however, clearly belongs to the
following year; so it may be that the whole of it is antedated.
[1614] Rog. Howden as above, p. 194.
[1615] _Ibid._ Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55.
Richard’s adventures in the East lie outside the sphere of English
history. The crusade of which he was the chief hero and leader had
indirectly an important effect upon English social life; but it was
in no sense a national undertaking; every man in the host was, like
the king himself, simply a volunteer, not sent out by his country or
representing it in any way. Richard’s glory is all his own; to us,
the practical interest of the crusade in which he won it consists in
the light which it throws upon his character, and on his political
relations with the other princes who took part in the enterprise. The
story, as it comes out bit by bit, oddly intermingled with the dry
details of home affairs, in the English historians of the time, and
as it is told at full length in the “Itinerary” composed by one of
his fellow-crusaders, reads more like an old wiking-saga than a piece
of sober history, and its hero looks more like a comrade of S. Olaf
or Harald Hardrada than a contemporary of Philip Augustus. Nothing
indeed except Richard’s northman-blood can account for the intense
love of the sea, and the consummate seamanship, as sound and practical
as it was brilliant and daring, which he displayed on his outward
voyage. No sea-king of old ever guided his little squadron of “long
keels” more boldly, more skilfully and more successfully through a
more overwhelming succession of difficulties and perils than those
through which Richard guided his large and splendid fleet on its way
from Messina to Acre.[1616] Not one had ever made a conquest at once
as rapid, as valuable and as complete as the conquest of Cyprus,
which Richard made in a few days, as a mere episode in his voyage, in
vengeance for the ill-treatment which some of his ship-wrecked sailors
had met with at the hands of the Cypriots and their king.[1617] But
it was a mere wiking-conquest; Richard never dreamed of permanently
adding this remote island to the list of his dominions; within a few
months he sold it to the Templars,[1618] and afterwards, as they
failed to take possession, he made it over to the dethroned king of
Jerusalem who had helped him to conquer it, Guy of Lusignan.[1619]
The same love of adventure for its own sake colours many of his
exploits in the Holy Land itself. But there we learn, too, that his
character had yet another and a higher aspect. We find in him, side
by side with the reckless northern valour, the northern endurance,
patience and self-restraint, coupled with a real disinterestedness and
a self-sacrificing generosity for which it would be somewhat hard to
find a parallel among his forefathers on either side.[1620] Alike in a
military, a political and a moral point of view, Richard is the only
one among the leaders of the crusading host, except Guy, who comes out
of the ordeal with a character not merely unstained, but shining with
redoubled lustre. And this alone would almost account for the fact
that, before they separated, nearly every one of them, save Guy, had
become Richard’s open or secret foe.
[1616] See the details of the voyage in _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 177–209; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 162–169; Rog.
Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 105–112.
[1617] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 188–204. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 163–168. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 105–112. Ric.
Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 47–49. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 20
(Howlett, vol. i. pp. 350, 351).
[1618] Rigord (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p.
35.
[1619] _Ibid._ _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 351. R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 36.
[1620] It is impossible to give illustrations here; the whole
_Itinerarium_, from his arrival at Acre (p. 211) onwards, is in
fact one long illustration.
Envy of a better man than themselves was however not the sole cause
of their hostility. The office of commander-in-chief of the host fell
to Richard’s share in consequence of a catastrophe which altered the
whole balance of political parties in Europe. That office had been
destined for the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, who for more than thirty
years had stood as high above all other Christian princes in political
capacity, military prowess, and personal nobility of character, as in
titular dignity and territorial power. Frederic set out for Palestine
as early as May 1189;[1621] he fought his way through the treacheries
of the Greek Emperor and the ambushes of the Turkish sultan of Iconium,
only to be drowned in crossing a little river in Asia Minor on June
10, 1190.[1622] These tidings probably met Richard on his arrival
at Messina in September. There he had to deal with the consequences
of another death which had occurred in the previous November, that
of his brother-in-law King William of Sicily.[1623] William was
childless; after a vain attempt to induce his father-in-law Henry
II. to accept the reversion of his crown,[1624] he had bequeathed it
to his own young aunt Constance, who was married to Henry of Germany,
the Emperor’s eldest son.[1625] It was, however, seized by Tancred,
a cousin of the late king.[1626] Richard’s alliance with Tancred,
though on the one hand absolutely necessary to secure the co-operation
of Sicily for the crusade, was thus on the other a mortal offence to
the new king of Germany, who moreover had already a grudge against
England upon another ground:--Henry the Lion had in this very summer
extorted from him almost at the sword’s point his restoration to his
forfeited estates.[1627] Thus when Richard at last reached Acre in June
1191,[1628] he was already in ill odour with the leaders of the German
contingent, the Emperor’s brother Duke Frederic of Suabia and his
cousin Duke Leopold of Austria.
[1621] Ansbert (Dobrowsky), p. 21. Most of the English writers
give a wrong date.
[1622] See the story of Frederic’s expedition and death in
Ansbert (Dobrowsky), p. 21 _et seq._; _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 43–55; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 56, 61, 62, 88,
89; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 358; Monach. Florent.,
vv. 245–330 (_ib._ vol. iii. app. to pref. pp. cxiv.–cxvii.).
[1623] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 101, 102.
[1624] “Vidimus, et præsentes fuimus, ubi regnum Palæstinæ,
regnum etiam Italiæ patri vestro aut uni filiorum suorum, quem
ad hoc eligeret, ab utriusque regni magnatibus et populis est
oblatum.” Pet. Blois, Ep. cxiii. (Giles, vol. i. p. 350--to
Geoffrey of York). Bishop Stubbs (_Rog. Howden_, vol. ii. pref.
p. xciii.) interprets “regnum Italiæ” as representing Sicily.
[1625] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 102, 202. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 29, 164 and note.
[1626] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 102.
[1627] See _ibid._ p. 145 and note.
[1628] _Ib._ p. 169.
This, however, was not all. Isaac, the tyrant of Cyprus, whom Richard
had brought with him as a captive, was also connected with the Suabian
and Austrian houses;[1629] his capture was another ground of offence.
Next, when the siege of Acre, which the united forces of eastern and
western Christendom had been pressing in vain for nearly two years,
came to an end a month after Richard joined it,[1630] Richard and
Leopold quarrelled over their shares in the honour of the victory;
Leopold--so the story goes--set up his banner on the wall of the
conquered town side by side with that of the English king, and Richard
tore it down again.[1631] Besides all this, as Richard’s superior
military capacity made him an object of perpetual jealousy to the
other princes, so his policy in Holy Land was in direct opposition to
theirs. Since the death of Queen Sibyl in October 1189,[1632] they
had one and all aimed at transferring the crown from her childless
widower Guy of Lusignan to the lord of Tyre, Conrad, marquis of
Montferrat. Montferrat was an important fief of the kingdom of Italy;
Conrad’s mother was aunt both to Leopold of Austria and to Frederic
Barbarossa;[1633] he thus had the whole Austrian and imperial influence
at his back; and that of Philip of France was thrown into the same
scale, simply because Richard had espoused the opposite cause. Guy
of Lusignan, with a fearlessness which speaks volumes in his favour
as well as in Richard’s, had thrown himself unreservedly on the
generosity and justice of the prince against whom all his race had for
so many years been struggling in Aquitaine; his confidence was met
as it deserved, and from the hour of their meeting in Cyprus to the
break-up of the crusade, Richard and Guy stood firmly side by side. But
they stood alone amid the ring of selfish politicians who supported
Conrad, and whose intrigues brought ruin upon the expedition. Philip,
indeed, went home as soon as Acre was won, to sow the seeds of mischief
in a field where they were likely to bring forth a more profitable
harvest for his interests than on the barren soil of Palestine. But
the whole body of French crusaders whom he left behind him, except
Count Henry of Champagne, made common cause with the Germans and the
partizans of Conrad in thwarting every scheme that Richard proposed,
either for the settlement of the Frank kingdom in Palestine or for the
reconquest of its capital. Twice he led the host within eight miles of
Jerusalem, and twice, when thus close to the goal, he was compelled
to turn away.[1634] Conrad fell by the hand of an assassin in April
1192;[1635] but Guy’s cause, like that of Jerusalem itself, was lost
beyond recovery; all that Richard could do for either was to compensate
Guy with the gift of Cyprus,[1636] and sanction the transfer of the
shadowy crown of Jerusalem to his own nephew, Henry of Champagne.[1637]
Harassed by evil tidings from England and forebodings of mischief
in Gaul, disappointed in his most cherished hopes and worn out with
fruitless labour, sick in body and more sick at heart, he saw that his
only chance of ever again striking a successful blow either for east
or west was to go home at once. After one last brilliant exploit, the
rescue of Joppa from the Turks who had seized it in his absence,[1638]
on September 2 he made a truce with Saladin for three years;[1639] on
October 9 he sailed from Acre.[1640]
[1629] R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 59. Ansbert (Dobrowsky),
p. 114.
[1630] On July 12, 1191. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 232,
233. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 178, etc.
[1631] See the different versions of this story in Otto of
S. Blaise, c. 36 (Wurstisen, _Germ. Hist. Illustr._, vol. i.
p. 216); Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 514; R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), p. 59; Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 52; Rigord
(Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p. 35; and Mat.
Paris, _Chron. Maj._ (Luard), vol. ii. p. 384.
[1632] _Epp. Cant._ cccxlvi. (Stubbs, p. 329).
[1633] Frederic’s father and Leopold’s father were
half-brothers, sons of the two marriages of Agnes of Franconia,
daughter of the Emperor Henry IV. Conrad’s mother, Judith, was
a child of Agnes’s second marriage with Leopold, marquis of
Austria. Conrad’s father was the Marquis William of Montferrat
who had been one of Henry II.’s allies in his struggle with
the Pope (see above, p. 60); and his elder brother had been
the first husband of Queen Sibyl. On his own iniquitous
marriage, if marriage it is to be called, with her half-sister
and heiress, Isabel--an affair which seems to have actually
broken the heart of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury--see
_Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 119–124; _Expugn. Terræ Sanctæ_
(Stevenson, _R. Coggeshall_), p. 256; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs),
p. 141; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 70, 71. Conrad’s
antecedents are told by Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 320,
321. Considering, however, the case of Guy of Lusignan, it is
perhaps hardly safe to admit a charge of homicide against any
claimant to the throne of Palestine on Roger’s sole authority.
[1634] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 285–312, 365–396;
Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 174, 175, 179; R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), pp. 37–40. See also the characteristic
and pathetic account of Richard’s distress at the last
turning-back, in Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 75–77.
[1635] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 339, 340. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 104. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 35.
Rog. Howden (as above), p. 181. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 24
(Howlett, vol. i. p. 363).
[1636] Rigord (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p.
35, makes it a sale; but it is hard to conceive where poor Guy
could have found money for the purchase.
[1637] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 342, 346, 347. R. Diceto
and Rog. Howden as above. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), pp. 35,
36. Will. Newb. as above, c. 28 (p. 374). Henry of Champagne
was son of Count Henry “the Liberal” and Mary, daughter of
Louis VII. and Eleanor.
[1638] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 403–424. R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), pp. 41–51. This is really the most splendid of all
Richard’s wiking exploits.
[1639] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 249. R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), p. 52. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 184.
[1640] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 441, 442. R. Diceto (as
above), p. 106. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 185, makes it a day
earlier.
Stormy winds had again parted the king’s ship from the rest of his
fleet when, within three days’ sail of Marseille, he learned that Count
Raymond of Toulouse was preparing to seize him on his landing,[1641]
no doubt in vengeance for the attack made upon Toulouse a few months
before by the seneschal of Gascony. Capture by Raymond meant betrayal
to Philip of France, and Richard knew Philip far too well to run
any needless risk of falling into his hands. Under more favourable
conditions, he might have escaped by sailing on through the strait of
Gibraltar direct to his island realm; but contrary winds made this
impossible, and drove him back upon Corfu, where he landed about
Martinmas.[1642] Thence, in his impatience, he set off in disguise with
only twenty followers[1643] on board a little pirate-vessel[1644] in
which, at imminent risk of discovery, he coasted up the Adriatic till
another storm wrecked him at the head of the Gulf of Aquileia.[1645]
By this time his German enemies were all on the look-out for him,
and whatever his plans on leaving Corfu may have been, he had now no
resource but to hurry through the imperial dominions as rapidly and
secretly as possible. His geographical knowledge, however, seems to
have been at fault, for he presently found himself at Vienna, whither
Leopold of Austria had long since returned. In spite of his efforts to
disguise himself, Richard was recognized, captured and brought before
the duke;[1646] and three days after Christmas the Emperor sent to
Philip of France the welcome tidings that their common enemy was a
prisoner in Leopold’s hands.[1647]
[1641] R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 53.
[1642] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 106. _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 442. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 185. R.
Coggeshall as above. The two first supply the dates.
[1643] Rog. Howden as above. The _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (as above)
says four, but there were at least nine with him after his
landing. See Rog. Howden (as above), p. 195.
[1644] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ as above. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson),
pp. 53–54, gives some details highly characteristic of Richard.
The pirates began by attacking the king’s ship, whereupon
he, “for their praiseworthy fortitude and boldness,” made
friends with them, and took his passage in their company. This
is authentic, for the writer had it from one of Richard’s
companions, the chaplain Anselm. _Ib._ p. 54.
[1645] This is the Emperor’s account, given in a letter to
Philip of France; Rog. Howden (as above), p. 195. Cf. Ansbert
(Dobrowsky), p. 114; Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 31 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 383); _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 42; R. Diceto as
above; R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 54; and Rog. Howden (as
above), p. 185 and note 7.
[1646] He was captured December 20, 1192; _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 443; R. Diceto (as above), p. 107. R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), p. 56, makes it a day later. Otto of S. Blaise, c.
38 (Wurstisen, _Germ. Hist. Illustr._, vol. i. p. 217), gives
the most detailed account of the capture--an account which
looks too characteristic not to be true. According to him,
Richard stopped to dine at a little inn just outside Vienna,
and to avoid recognition, set to work to broil some meat for
himself. He was holding the spit with his own hands, utterly
forgetful that one of them was adorned with a magnificent
ring, when a servant of the duke chanced to look in, noticed
the incongruity, then recognized the king whom he had seen in
Palestine, and hurried off to report his discovery; whereupon
the duke came in person and seized his enemy on the spot,
in the middle of his cooking. The story of R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), pp. 55, 56, is somewhat more dignified. Cf.
also Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 31 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 383);
Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 186, 195; and Ansbert
(Dobrowsky), p. 114.
[1647] The letter is in Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 195,
196. “Gratissimum illi super aurum et topazion ... nuntium
destinavit,” says Will. Newb. as above, c. 32 (p. 384).
Philip at once forwarded the news to John, with a renewal of the
proposal which he had made to him a year before. John hurried over
sea and formally did homage to the French king for all his brother’s
continental dominions; but the seneschal and barons of Normandy refused
to acknowledge the transaction, and he hastened back again to try his
luck in England.[1648] There he met with no better success. He called
the justiciars to a council in London, assured them that the king was
dead, and demanded their homage; they refused it; he withdrew in a
rage to fortify his castles, and the justiciars prepared to attack
them.[1649] Before Easter a French fleet sailed to his assistance,
but was repulsed by the English militia assembled at the summons of
Archbishop Walter.[1650] While the justiciars laid siege to Windsor,
Geoffrey of York fortified Doncaster for the king, and thence went
to help his gallant old suffragan and rival, Hugh of Durham, who was
busy with the siege of Tickhill.[1651] The castles had all but fallen,
and John was on the eve of submission, when the victorious justiciars
suddenly grew alarmed at their own success. Richard’s fate was still
so uncertain that they dared not humiliate his heir; and at Eleanor’s
instigation they made a truce with John, to last until All-Saints’
day.[1652]
[1648] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 204. Cf. R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. ii. p. 106. John’s treaty with Philip is in Rymer,
_Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 57; date, February 1193.
[1649] Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 204, 205. Cf. Will. Newb. as
above, c. 34 (p. 390).
[1650] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 205. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),
vol. i. pp. 514, 515.
[1651] Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 206, 208.
[1652] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 207. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 516, says Michaelmas.
The six months of tranquillity thus gained were spent in negotiations
for the king’s release. As soon as the justiciars heard of his capture
they had despatched Bishop Savaric of Bath to treat with the Emperor,
and the abbots of Boxley and Robertsbridge to open communications, if
possible, with Richard himself;[1653] this however was a difficult
matter, for of the place of his confinement nothing was known except
that it was somewhere in the Austrian dominions, and these were to most
Englishmen of that day a wholly undiscovered country. How the captive
was first found history does not say. Tradition filled the blank
with the beautiful story of the minstrel Blondel, wandering through
Europe till he reached a castle where there was said to be a prisoner
whose name no one could tell--winning the favour of its lord and thus
gaining admittance within its walls--peering about it on every side
in a vain effort to catch a glimpse of the mysterious captive, till
at last a well-known voice, singing “a song which they two had made
between them, and which no one knew save they alone,” fell upon his
delighted ear through the narrow prison-window whence Richard had seen
and recognized the face of his friend.[1654] It may after all have been
Blondel who guided the two abbots to the spot; we only know that they
met Richard at Ochsenfurt on his way to be delivered up on Palm Sunday
to the Emperor Henry at Speyer.[1655] Thenceforth the negotiations
proceeded without intermission; but it took nearly a year to complete
them. Personal jealousy, family interest, and pride at finding himself
actually arbiter of the fate of the most illustrious living hero in
Christendom, all tempted Henry VI. to throw as many obstacles as
possible in the way of his captive’s release. Taking advantage of
his own position as titular head of western Christendom, he demanded
satisfaction for all the wrongs which the various princes of the Empire
had received, or considered themselves to have received, at Richard’s
hands, and for all his alleged misdoings on the Crusade, from his
alliance with Tancred to the death of Conrad of Montferrat, in which
it was suggested that he had had a share.[1656] Not one of the charges
would bear examination; but they served Henry as an excuse for playing
fast and loose with Richard on the one side and Philip of France on
the other, and for making endless changes in the conditions required
for Richard’s liberation. These were ultimately fixed at a ransom of a
hundred and fifty thousand marks, the liberation of Isaac of Cyprus,
and the betrothal of Eleanor of Britanny to a son of the Austrian
duke.[1657]
[1653] Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 197, 198.
[1654] _Récits d’un ménestrel de Reims_ (ed. N. de Wailly, Soc.
de l’Hist. de France), cc. 77–81 (pp. 41–43).
[1655] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 198.
[1656] The charges are summed up in R. Coggeshall (Stevenson),
pp. 58, 59. On the death of Conrad see Stubbs, _Itin. Reg.
Ric._, pref. pp. xxii, xxiii.
[1657] Treaty in Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 215,
216. Roger dates it S. Peter’s day; _ib._ p. 215. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 110, makes it July 5. Cf. Will. Newb., l.
iv. c. 37 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 398).
The duty of superintending the collection of the ransom and the
transmission of the hostages required by the Emperor for its payment
had been at first intrusted by Richard to his old friend and confidant,
the chancellor William of Longchamp. William, however, found it
impossible to fulfil his instructions; before the justiciars would
allow him to set foot in England at all, they made him swear to meddle
with nothing outside his immediate commission; when compelled to meet
him in council at S. Albans, Walter of Rouen refused him the kiss of
peace, and the queen-mother and the barons all alike refused to trust
him with the hostages.[1658] Prompt and vigorous measures were however
taken for raising the money. An “aid for the king’s ransom” was one of
the three regular feudal obligations, which in strict law fell only
upon the tenants-in-chivalry; but all the knights’ fees in Richard’s
whole dominions would have been unable to furnish so large a sum as
was required in his case. In addition therefore to an aid of twenty
shillings on the knight’s fee, the justiciars imposed a wholly new tax:
they demanded a fourth part of the revenue and of the moveable goods of
every man, whether layman or clerk, throughout the realm. Severe and
unprecedented as was this demand, it provoked no opposition, even from
the clergy;[1659] it had indeed the active co-operation of the bishops,
under the direction of a new primate--Hubert Walter, the bishop of
Salisbury, who had been one of Richard’s fellow-crusaders, and was now
at Richard’s desire elected to the see of Canterbury.[1660] The nation
seems to have responded willingly to the demands made upon it; yet
the response proved inadequate, and the deficiency had to be supplied
partly by a contribution from the Cistercians and Gilbertines of a
fourth part of the wool of the flocks which were their chief source of
revenue, and partly by confiscating the gold and silver vessels and
ornaments of the wealthier churches.[1661] Similar measures were taken
in Richard’s continental dominions, and they were so far successful
that when the appointed time arrived for his release, in January 1194,
the greater part of the ransom was paid.[1662] For the remainder
hostages were given, of whom one was Archbishop Walter of Rouen.[1663]
This selection left the chief justiciarship of England practically
vacant, and accordingly Richard, before summoning the Norman primate
to Germany, superseded him in that office by bestowing it upon the new
archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter.[1664]
[1658] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 17 (Brewer, vol.
iv. pp. 415, 416). Cf. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 211, 212.
[1659] Except at York, where the resistance was prompted by
spite against the archbishop. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
p. 222.
[1660] Elected May 29, 1193; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp.
108, 109. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 518.
[1661] On the ransom, and how it was raised, see Rog. Howden
as above, pp. 210, 211, 222, 225; R. Diceto as above, p. 110;
Will. Newb. l. iv. c. 38 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 399, 400); and
Bishop Stubbs’s explanations of the matter, in his preface to
Rog. Howden, vol. iv. pp. lxxxii–lxxxvi, and _Constit. Hist._,
vol. i. p. 501.
[1662] Rog. Howden as above, p. 225.
[1663] _Ib._ p. 233. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 41 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 404), and R. Diceto as above, p. 113. According to this
last, another of the hostages was William the chancellor; but
his name does not appear in Rog. Howden’s list. One MS. of Ralf
has in its place that of Baldwin Wake. As Baldwin certainly
was a hostage on this occasion, perhaps William was selected
first, and Baldwin afterwards substituted for him. One at least
of the hostages was released before the whole ransom was paid:
Archbishop Walter came back to England on May 19. R. Diceto as
above, p. 115.
[1664] Rog. Howden as above, p. 226. R. Diceto as above, p.
112. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 523.
The new justiciar immediately had his hands full of trouble. At the
prospect of Richard’s return John grew half frantic with rage and
dismay. As early as July 1193, when it became known that Richard
and the Emperor had come to terms, Philip had sent warning to
John--“Beware, the devil is loose again!” and John, without stopping
to reflect that the “devil” could not be really loose till his ransom
was paid, had hurried over sea to seek shelter from his brother’s wrath
under the protection of the French king. Richard, however, at once made
overtures of reconciliation to both;[1665] the terms which he offered
to John were indeed so favourable that the Norman constables refused
to execute them, and thereby put an end to the negotiation.[1666]
In January Philip and John made a last effort to bribe the Emperor
either to keep Richard in custody for another year, or actually to
sell him into their hands.[1667] When this failed, John in the frenzy
of desperation sent a confidential clerk over to England with letters
to his adherents there, bidding them make all his castles ready for
defence against the king. The messenger’s foolish boasting, however,
betrayed him as he passed through London; he was arrested by order
of the mayor, his letters were seized, and a council was hurriedly
called to hear their contents. Its prompt and vigorous measures were
clearly due to the initiative of the new justiciar-archbishop. John was
excommunicated and declared disseized of all his English tenements, and
the assembly broke up to execute its own decree by force of arms. The
old bishop of Durham returned to his siege of Tickhill; the earls of
Huntingdon, Chester and Ferrers led their forces against Nottingham;
Archbishop Hubert himself besieged Marlborough, and took it in a few
days; Lancaster was given up to him by its constable, who happened to
be his own brother; and S. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall--a monastery
whose site, not unlike that of its great Norman namesake, had tempted
one of John’s partizans to drive out the monks and fortify it in his
interest--surrendered on the death of its commander, who is said
to have died of terror at the news of the king’s approach.[1668]
Richard had been set free on February 4.[1669] After a slow progress
through Germany and the Low Countries, he embarked at Swine, near
Antwerp, and landed at Sandwich on March 13.[1670] Following the
invariable practice of his father, he hastened first to the martyr’s
shrine at Canterbury;[1671] next day he was met by the victorious
archbishop hastening to welcome him home,[1672] and three days later
he was solemnly received in London.[1673] As soon as the defenders of
Tickhill were certified of his arrival they surrendered to the bishop
of Durham.[1674] As Windsor, Wallingford and the Peak had been in
the queen-mother’s custody since the truce of May 1193,[1675] only
Nottingham now remained to be won. Richard at once marched against it
with all his forces; the archbishop followed, Hugh of Durham brought
up his men from Tickhill; in three days the castle surrendered, and
Richard was once again undisputed master in his realm.[1676]
[1665] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 216–220.
[1666] _Ib._ pp. 227, 228.
[1667] _Ib._ p. 229. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 40 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 402).
[1668] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 236–238.
[1669] _Ib._ p. 233. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 112, 113.
R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 62, dates it February 2.
[1670] Rog. Howden as above, p. 235; R. Coggeshall as above.
Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 524, dates it March 12, and R.
Diceto as above, p. 114, March 20.
[1671] Gerv. Cant. as above. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 63.
[1672] Gerv. Cant. as above, p. 524.
[1673] R. Diceto and R. Coggeshall as above.
[1674] Rog. Howden as above, p. 238.
[1675] _Ib._ p. 207.
[1676] _Ib._ pp. 238–240. R. Diceto and R. Coggeshall as above.
Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 42 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 407, 408).
It must have seemed, to say the least, an ungracious return for the
sacrifices which England had made in his behalf, when the king at
once demanded from the English knighthood the services of a third of
their number to accompany him into Normandy, from the freeholders a
contribution of two shillings on every carucate of land, and from the
Cistercians the whole of their wool for the current year.[1677] In
view of a war with France, of which it was impossible to calculate
either the exigencies or the duration, Richard undoubtedly needed
money; but his needs pressed heavily upon a country which had already
been almost drained to provide his ransom. In justice to him, it must
however be added that the “carucage,” as the new land-tax came to be
called, seems to have been levied not for his personal profit, but as
a supplement to the measures taken by the justiciars in the previous
year, to complete the sum still due to Henry VI. It was in reality an
old impost revived under a new name, for the carucate or ploughland
was in practice reckoned as equivalent to the ancient hide,[1678]
and the sum levied upon it was precisely that which the hide had
furnished for the Danegeld of earlier times.[1679] Its re-imposition
in these circumstances, under a new appellation and for the payment
of what the whole nation regarded as a debt of honour, met with no
resistance. The Cistercians, however, remonstrated so strongly against
the demand for their wool that they were allowed to escape with a
money-compensation.[1680] The taxes were imposed in a great council
held at Nottingham at the end of March and beginning of April,[1681]
where measures were also taken for the punishment of the traitors
and the reconstruction of the administrative body. These two objects
were accomplished both at once, and both were turned to account for
the replenishment of the royal coffers. Except John, Bishop Hugh of
Chester, and Gerard de Camville, who were cited before the king’s court
on a charge of high treason,[1682] none of the delinquents were even
threatened with any worse punishment than dismissal from office. This
was inflicted upon most of those who had taken part in the proceedings
against the chancellor. Several of the sheriffs indeed were only
transferred from one shire to another;[1683] but Gerard de Camville
was ejected without compensation from the sheriffdom of Lincolnshire,
and Hugh Bardulf, one of the subordinate justiciars who had joined
the party of John, from those of Yorkshire and Westmoreland. These
three offices Richard at once put up for sale, and, with a strange
inconsistency, William of Longchamp, whose well-grounded resistance
to the accumulation of sheriffdoms in episcopal hands had been the
beginning of his troubles, now sought to buy the two former, and
also that of Northamptonshire, for himself. He was however outbid by
Archbishop Geoffrey of York, who bought the sheriffdom of Yorkshire
for three thousand marks and a promise of a hundred marks annually as
increment.[1684] This purchase made Geoffrey the most influential man
in the north, for Hugh of Durham, apparently finding himself powerless
to hold Northumberland, had resigned it into the king’s hands.[1685]
William of Scotland immediately opened negotiations with Richard for
its re-purchase, as well as for that of Cumberland, Westmoreland,
Lancaster, and the other English lands held by his grandfather David.
The barons, however, before whom Richard laid the proposal in a council
at Northampton, resented it strongly; Richard’s own military instinct
led him to refuse the cession of the castles, and as William would not
be satisfied without them, the scheme came to nothing.[1686]
[1677] Rog. Howden as above, p. 242. Cf. Will. Newb., l. v. c.
1 (vol. ii. pp. 416, 417).
[1678] That it was so in the reign of Henry I. seems plain from
Orderic’s story about Ralf Flambard re-measuring for William
Rufus “omnes carrucatas, quas Angli hidas vocant” (Ord. Vit.,
Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._, p. 678)--a statement which,
whether the story itself be correct or not, shews that Orderic
himself was accustomed to hear carucates and hides identified.
The settlement of the carucates at a hundred acres in 1198
points to the same identification.
[1679] And seemingly, to the “dona” which took the place of
the Danegeld after its abolition _eo nomine_ in 1163. On the
carucage of 1194 see Stubbs, pref. to Rog. Howden, vol. iv. pp.
lxxxii–lxxxiv and notes, lxxxvi. See also the account of it
given by Will. Newb., l. v. c. i (Howlett, vol. ii. p. 416).
[1680] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 242.
[1681] March 30–April 2. _Ib._ pp. 240–243.
[1682] _Ib._ pp. 241, 242. Cf. the account of John’s
condemnation in Ann. Margam, a. 1199 (Luard, _Ann. Monast._,
vol. i. p. 24).
[1683] Stubbs, _Constit. Hist._, vol. i. p. 503.
[1684] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p, 241.
[1685] _Ib._ p. 249. Will. Newb., l. v. c. 1 (Howlett, vol. ii.
p. 416).
[1686] Rog. Howden as above, pp. 243–245, 249, 250.
Richard meanwhile had been making a progress through Mid-England,[1687]
similar to that which he had made before his crowning in 1189,
and ending at Winchester, where he solemnly “wore his crown” in
the cathedral church on the first Sunday after Easter.[1688] This
ceremonial was in itself merely a revival of the old regal practice
which Henry II. had formally abandoned in 1158; but its revival on
this occasion was prompted by other motives than Richard’s love of
pomp and shew. As a concession to the Emperor’s vanity--for we can
scarcely conceive any other motive--Richard had accepted from Henry
VI. the investiture of the kingdom of Burgundy; “over which,” says
a contemporary English writer, “be it known that the Emperor had
really no power at all,” but for which, nevertheless, he had received
Richard’s homage.[1689] The homage was, of course, as empty as the gift
for which it was due; but insular pride, which had always boasted that
an English king, alone among European sovereigns, had no superior upon
earth, was offended by it none the less; and although the story that
Richard had formally surrendered England itself into Henry’s hands and
received it back from him as a fief of the Empire[1690] may perhaps be
set down as an exaggeration, still it seems to have been felt that the
majesty of the island-crown had been so far dimmed by the transactions
of his captivity as to require a distinct re-assertion.[1691] As he
stood in his royal robes, sceptre in hand and crown on head,[1692] amid
the throng of bishops and barons in the “Old Minster” where so many of
his English forefathers lay sleeping, past shame was forgotten, and
England was ready once again to welcome him as a new king.[1693] But
the welcome met with no response. On May 12--just two months after his
landing at Sandwich--Richard again sailed for Normandy;[1694] and this
time he went to return no more.
[1687] _Ib._ pp. 243–246.
[1688] _Ib._ p. 247. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 114. R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 64. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
pp. 524, 525. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 42 (Howlett, vol. i. p.
408).
[1689] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 226.
[1690] _Ib._ pp. 202, 203. He seems to be the only writer who
mentions it.
[1691] See R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 113; and on the
whole question of this coronation, Bishop Stubbs’s note to Rog.
Howden, vol. iii. p. 247, and his remarks in _Constit. Hist._,
vol. i. pp. 504, 561, 562. Richard himself seems to have
resented the popular view, for R. Coggeshall (Stevenson, p. 64)
says he went through the ceremony “aliquantulum renitens.”
[1692] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 247. See the details of the
ceremony in Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 524–526.
[1693] “Detersâ captivitatis ignominiâ quasi rex novus
apparuit.” Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 42 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 408).
[1694] Rog. Howden as above, p. 251. R. Diceto as above, p.
114. Gerv. Cant. as above, p. 527.