Chapter VII: Richard and England (3)

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.