Chapter V: John and the Pope (3)

[740] The young countess of Holland, Ada, daughter and heiress of Count Theodoric who died in 1203; see _Art de Vérifier les Dates_, vol. xiv. pp. 261, 430. Her mother at once married her to Louis, count of Los; her father’s brother, William, claimed Holland against the young couple; he and Louis took opposite sides on the Imperial question, William holding for Otto, Louis for Philip of Suabia; and eighteen days after the wedding William drove Ada’s mother and husband out of Holland, captured Ada herself, and sent her to England to be kept in prison by John. She was still there in 1207, and was only released when her husband had done homage to both John and Otto, _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 82, 82 b.

[741] Cf. M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. iii. p. 109, and _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 82 b.

[742] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 77.

[743] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 200.

[744] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227.

[745] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 202; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 232, 233.

[746] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 202, 203.

[747] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 162. The date there given is a year too late, as the English Rolls show.

[748] Boulogne, _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 104; _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 116, 117; _Chart._ p. 186; _Pat._ p. 93; Bar and Limburg, _Pat._ p. 92 b; _Foedera_, p. 106; Flanders, _Pat._ pp. 93, 94; Louvain, _Foedera_, pp. 106, 107.

[749] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 130 b.

[750] _Brut y Tywysogion_, a. 1211. Cf. _Ann. Cambr._ a. 1213.

[751] _Brut_, a. 1212.

[752] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 238; R. Coggeshall, p. 164.

[753] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 131, 131 b.

[754] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 94.

[755] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 121 b, 122.

[756] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 123 b.

[757] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 239, and _Itin._ a. 14.

[758] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207.

[759] Cf. _ib._ and R. Wendover, as above.

[760] W. Coventry, _l.c._

[761] R. Wendover, _l.c._

[762] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1212. See Note II. at end.

[763] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 239; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207. John was at Nottingham September 9–15, and reached London on the 20th, after passing through “Salvata,” Geddington, Northampton, and St. Albans, _Itin._ a. 14. The assertion of the _Ann. Margan._ (a. 1211 for 1212) that in his terror at the discovery of the meditated treason he “shut himself up for fifteen days in Nottingham castle” is thus shown to be false.

[764] _Itin._ a. 14.

[765] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 208. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 240; _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 122, 123; _Ann. Tewkesbury_, a. 1212, and _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1213.

[766] W. Coventry, _l.c._

[767] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 240.

[768] _Ib._ Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 208.

[769] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 248.

[770] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 241.

[771] _Ib._ pp. 238, 239.

[772] _Ib._ p. 240; R. Coggeshall, p. 165; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207. The entry in _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1211 about the razing of Fitz-Walter’s castles and the cutting down of his woods is probably misplaced, and should be referred to 1212. See Note II. at end.

[773] W. Coventry, _l.c._ R. Coggeshall, _l.c._, and _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1211 (for 1212) name as one of these victims a clerk called Geoffrey of Norwich, whom M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 126 and _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 527, confuses with the archdeacon whose fate is related by Roger of Wendover, vol. iii. p. 229. See above, p. 136.

[774] R. Coggeshall, p. 164.

[775] Cf. _Rot. Chart._ pp. 191 b, 192; _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1212; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 207; R. Coggeshall, p. 165, and M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 132, and _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 537.

[776] W. Coventry, _l.c._

[777] From the tenour of these letters it is clear that neither of the persons addressed had been in England recently. We must therefore suppose that an order countermanding the muster at Chester had reached the barons in Ireland before they set out to obey the royal summons, and that for the muster at Nottingham their presence had not been required.

[778] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 132 b (_a. r._ 14).

[779] Hunter, _Three Catalogues_, pp. 42, 43; Sweetman, _Cal. Doc. Ireland_, vol. i. pp. 73, 74 (No. 448).

[780] Cf. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 126; Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xv. No. 234, and _Ann. Burton_, a. 1211, 1214.

[781] _Orig. Guelficae_, vol. iii. pp. 340, 341; W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 204, 205.

[782] Martène, _Ampliss. Collectio_, vol. i. col. 1111. Cf. W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc. 158, 159.

[783] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 241, 242, and R. Coggeshall, p. 165.

[784] R. Wendover, _l.c._

[785] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 241, 242.

[786] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 165.

[787] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 104.

[788] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 243. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 209. W. Armor. _Philipp_. l. ix. v. 235, makes the day April 22. “Culvertage” was the penalty for treason--forfeiture and perpetual servitude.

[789] W. Coventry, _l.c._

[790] Writ given by R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 244.

[791] Writ in R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 245.

[792] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 245, 246. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1212 (evidently meant for 1213). John was at Canterbury May 4–6, 1213; _Itin._ a. 14.

[793] John, who in his prosperous days made almost a parade of disbelief in William’s loyalty, and delighted in straining it to the uttermost by saying and doing everything he could think of to insult and provoke William, nevertheless knew well that in moments of peril William was the one counsellor to whose disinterestedness he could safely trust, the one follower on whom he could count unreservedly, the one friend whom he could not do without. So at the close of 1212 or early in 1213 he had recalled the Marshal to his side, and proved his confidence in him by giving him back his two sons who were in England as hostages (_Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14492–598). The bishop of Norwich had also come over from Ireland with five hundred knights and other horsemen to join the muster (R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 245). It tells something of the success of John’s measures for the settlement of the Irish March that the simultaneous absence of the justiciar and the Marshal, at such a crisis in the king’s fortunes, appears to have been followed by no disturbance in the country which they thus left without a ruler.

[794] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 246.

[795] See Petit-Dutaillis, _Hist. de Louis VIII._ pp. 37, 38.

[796] The Pope’s letter, the “Forma,” and the “Expositiones” are given in Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xv. No. 234. The two former are also in _Ann. Burton_, a. 1214. I think there can be no doubt that the three documents together constitute the “quasi peremptorium mandatum” brought by the three envoys mentioned in W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 209. Cf. above, p. 160.

[797] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 242.

[798] R. Coggeshall, p. 166.

[799] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 210, and the letter patent in R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 248–52, Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 76, and _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 111.

[800] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 77; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 252–4; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 111, 112. The oath of fealty is given by R. Wendover, p. 255, and in _Foedera_, p. 112. Roger makes the date Ascension Eve, but it was really the Wednesday in the week before Rogation Sunday.

[801] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 252.

[802] “Addidit autem hoc ex suo,” W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 210.

[803] In a private letter which he wrote to the Pope on the same day, John says he did it “inspirante gratia Sancti Spiritus, ad perpetuam Ecclesiae pacem et exaltationem,” Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 78.

[804] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xvi. No. 79.

[805] “Salvis nobis et haeredibus nostris justitiis, libertatibus et regalibus nostris,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 254.

[806] If we may believe Matthew Paris, the Pope was not the only potentate to whom John about this time offered homage and tribute. In Matthew’s _Gesta Abbatum S. Albani_, vol. i. pp. 236–40, and in his _Chronica Majora_, vol. ii. pp. 559–62, is a long account of an embassy which John is said to have sent to the emir of Morocco, Al Moumenim (Mohammed al Nassir), “significans eidem quod se et regnum suum libenter redderet eidem et dederet, et deditum teneret ab ipso, si placeret ei, sub tributum. Necnon et legem Christianam, quam vanam censuit, relinquens, legi Machomet fideliter adhaereret.” Matthew proceeds to give a lively account of the ambassadors’ adventures, and of the rebuke which the emir administered, through them, to the sovereign who had sent them on so shameful an errand; all of which Matthew professes to have heard from one of the envoys themselves. Unluckily for him, he has given two contradictory dates for the embassy. In the _Gesta Abbatum_ he represents it as taking place during the Interdict; and Dr. Lingard has shown, by evidence drawn from Matthew himself, that if it was sent at all, it must have been sent in 1212 (Lingard, _Hist. England_, vol. ii. p. 325; cf. M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 566). But in _Chron. Maj._ Matthew puts it after the reconciliation with Rome, representing it as despatched by John in his disappointment at finding that transaction profit him less than he had expected. The story of the interview between the envoys and the emir, as Matthew tells it, has therefore a very strong appearance of having been invented by that writer, as a kind of satire on John’s submission to the Pope; though the mere fact of some overture on John’s part for an alliance with the emir is neither impossible nor unlikely.

[807] In March 1215 William Mauclerc, John’s agent at Rome, writes to John that there have come thither some envoys sent by the barons to complain to the Pope, “cum ipse sit Dominus Angliae,” that John refuses them their rights, etc., and he continues: “Supplicant autem Domino Papae quod super his eis provideret, cum satis constet ei quod ipsi audacter pro libertate Ecclesiae ad mandatum suum se vobis opponerent, et quod vos annuum redditum Domino Papae et Ecclesiae Romanae concessistis, et alios honores quos ei et Romanae Ecclesiae exhibuistis, non sponte nec ex devotione, imo ex timore _et per eos coactus_ fecistis.” _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 120. See Lingard, _Hist. Eng._ vol. i. p. 333.

[808] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 135.

[809] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211.

[810] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211.

[811] _Ib._ p. 212. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 255, 256.

[812] W. Coventry and R. Wendover, _ll.cc._ Cf. _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 125, 126; and R. Coggeshall, p. 167. The date, May 28, is given in _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1213.

[813] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 256; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 112.

[814] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 257. Cf. W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc. 169, 170; and _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 99.

[815] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14612–40; _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 130 (the dates are from this writer); R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 258; and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211.

[816] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 131. Cf. _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 100.

[817] _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 131–3; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 258. Salisbury was wrecked on the Northumberland coast on his return, but nothing was lost, _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14649–58.

[818] W. Coventry, _l.c._; _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14641–6.

[819] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 259, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 212. John was at Porchester June 16, and at Bishopstoke June 17–20 and June 29–July 1; _Itin._ a. 15. For Salisbury’s mission, see _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 100 b, 101 (June 22 and 26).

[820] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 259, 260; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 211; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 98 b, 99, 99 b, 100, 100 b; _Rot. Chart._ pp. 193 b, 194.

[821] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213, says “mense Junio”; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 260, July 16; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 108, and _Ann. Worc._ a. 1213, say July 9.

[822] R. Wendover, _l.c._ Cf. _Ann. Tewkesb._ and _Worc._ a. 1213, and _Itin._ a. 15.

[823] The _Ann. Dunst._, which place the return of the exiles under a wrong year, 1212, say the king met them “in monte juxta _Porecestre_.” This is surely an error for Winchester. Nothing is more likely than that John should have gone to meet them on S. Giles’s Hill.

[824] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 261; _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1212; and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213.

[825] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 100, 100 b.

[826] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 99, 101 b; _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 146.

[827] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 261, 262.

[828] _Ib._ p. 261. Roger says John went to Portsmouth; but the _Itinerary_ shows him hovering about between Studland, Corfe, Dorchester, Poorstock, and Gillingham.

[829] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 261, 262.

[830] R. Coggeshall, p. 167.

[831] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 261; for dates see _Itin._ a. 15.

[832] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 141.

[833] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 262.

[834] _Itin._ a. 15.

[835] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 263.

[836] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 262, 263. John was at Northampton August 28–31, at “Salvata” September 2, and at Nottingham September 3; _Itin._ a. 15.

[837] _Itin._ a. 15.

[838] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1213.

[839] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 275, 276; _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 115. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 214.

[840] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 276.

[841] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1212 (_i.e._ 1213). “Quae pax non tenuit, quia promissa non fuerant hinc inde soluta,” adds the chronicler.

[842] Cf. R. Wendover, _l.c._, and _Itin._ a. 15.

[843] R. Wendover, _l.c._

[844] _Ib._ John’s order for this payment is in _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 106.

[845] Such an investigation by joint commissions was going on in the diocese of Durham in January 1214, _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 106 b.

[846] York, Durham, Chester, Worcester, Exeter, Chichester, Whitby, S. Edmund’s, S. Augustine’s at Canterbury, Reading, S. Benet’s at Hulme, Battle, Ramsey, Peterborough, Cirencester, Eynsham (W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213), Grimsby, Wherwell and Sherborne (_Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 147, 148, 150).

[847] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 146 b, 148, 150, 150 b.

[848] Date, November 1, 1213; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 277. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216.

[849] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 107. The name of the abbey is there printed as Evesham; but cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 213.

[850] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 160.

[851] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 109, 109 b.

[852] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 114.

[853] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 103 b.

[854] _Ib._ p. 106 b: _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 156, 158.

[855] _Rot. Pat._ p. 100.

[856] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 103 b.

[857] _Ib._ p. 102.

[858] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 271.

[859] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 558.

[860] M. Paris, _l.c._ p. 559, makes John repeat on the death of Geoffrey Fitz-Peter the remark which he has previously recorded as having been made by the king on the death of Hubert Walter. See above, p. 113.

[861] _First Report on Dignity of a Peer_ (1826), vol. ii. appendix i. p. 2, from Close Roll 15 John; see Hardy’s edition of the Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 165. In _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 117, the document is printed with an obviously wrong date.

[862] _Itin._ a. 15.

[863] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 278.

[864] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 168; _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 139–41, and _Itin._ a. 15. The Flemish authority says “li cuens ... li fist houmage de la tierre ke il devoit avoir en Engletierre”; the English chronicler says the homage was for “all Flanders.” Unluckily there seems to be no charter extant to settle the point.

[865] R. Coggeshall, p. 168. Raymond seems to have been on his way home, and travelling at John’s expense, in January 1214; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 106 b, 108 b.

[866] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 160.

[867] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 109 b.

[868] _Ib._ p. 110, 110 b.

[869] It is a question whether this means the queen’s child so named, or that elder son Richard who figures actively in his father’s struggle with the barons a year or two later.

[870] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 280; R. Coggeshall, p. 163; and _Itin._ a. 15.

[871] R. Coggeshall, p. 168.

[872] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 280. John was at La Rochelle February 15–20, _Itin._ a. 15.

[873] _Itin._ a. 15.

[874] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 111.

[875] _Ib._ p. 111 b.

[876] _Itin._ a. 15.

[877] _Rot. Pat._ p. 112 b.

[878] _Itin._ a. 15.

[879] _Rot. Pat._ _l.c._

[880] _Itin._ a. 15.

[881] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 99–115. Cf. Peter of Blois’s complaint (_Ep._ xli.) of the impossibility of tracking the movements of Henry II.

[882] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 280, 281. The treaty with the Lusignans is in _Rot. Chart._ p. 197 b; it has no date.

[883] _Itin._ a. 16.

[884] M. Petit-Dutaillis (_Hist. de Louis VIII._ p. 48) thinks this affair at Nantes occurred “dans les premiers jours de juin.” The only blank days in John’s itinerary during this month are June 2–4, 8, 9 and 13. From the relative positions of the places where he was on the other days, I cannot but think that the 13th is the most likely date.

[885] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 285, 286. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 169; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 172; and _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 143.

[886] _Itin._ a. 16.

[887] M. Petit-Dutaillis (_Louis VIII._ p. 49) remarks that the modern post-office spelling, “La Roche-aux-Moines,” is wrong, the Latin form being “Rupes Monachi,” not “Monachorum.”

[888] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 178.

[889] Dates from _Itin._ a. 16.

[890] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 286.

[891] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 202–18.

[892] R. Wendover, _l.c._

[893] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 243–65.

[894] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 179. Cf. Itin. a. 16.

[895] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 287, and M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 150.

[896] _Rot. Pat._ p. 118 b.

[897] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 288–91; M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 151; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc. 181–97; R. Coggeshall, p. 169 (wrong date), and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216.

[898] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 151.

[899] R. Coggeshall, p. 170; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216.

[900] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 210 b.

[901] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 139.

[902] R. Coggeshall, p. 167. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 214.

[903] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 124.

[904] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 204.

[905] _Foedera_, _l.c._

[906] _Itin._ a. 16.

[907] _Rot. Pat._ p. 140 b.

[908] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 204.

[909] R. Coggeshall, p. 170.

[910] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 125. There is a mutilated version of this document in R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 292, 293.

[911] “Expletis agendis suis in partibus transmarinis, rediit in Angliam,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 293.

[912] _Itin._ a. 16; for the last date see _Memorials of S. Edmund’s_, vol. ii. p. 92.

[913] _Rot. Pat._ p. 111 b.

[914] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 283, 284. The terms are stated in a very confused way, both in the Pope’s letter (given _l.c._; also in _Rot. Chart._ pp. 208, 209), in a letter of Earl William of Ferrars (_Rot. Pat._ p. 139; Ferrars was one of those who swore as sureties for the king), and in that of John himself (_Rot. Chart._ p. 199); but a comparison of the three documents with Roger’s own account of the matter makes it tolerably clear that Nicolas was authorized to raise the interdict as soon as he had obtained security for the payment of twelve thousand marks a year, in half-yearly instalments, till the total of forty thousand should be complete.

[915] _Rot. Chart._ p. 199.

[916] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 284, makes the date June 29; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 217, R. Coggeshall, p. 169, and _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1214, make it July 2.

[917] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 208, 208 b, 209.

[918] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 284, 285.

[919] _Rot. Pat._ pp. 124, 140 b, 141.

[920] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 215.

[921] At Dunstable, “after the octave of Epiphany,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 278.

[922] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 278, 279, says that Nicolas, with the king’s assent, sent Pandulf specially to plead for him at Rome against the archbishop; but Pandulf’s approaching departure over sea “in nuncium nostrum” was announced by John on January 4 (_Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 141), ten days at least before Stephen’s appeal was made or even threatened.

[923, 924] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 278, 279, and R. Coggeshall, p. 170.

[925] _Statutes of the Realm_, Charters of Liberties, p. 5. A copy of this grant, with the date January 15, is printed in _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 126–7.