Chapter II: Richard and France (2)

This affair was one of Richard’s most daring personal adventures; he himself acknowledged that he had “staked his own head and his kingdom to boot, overriding the advice of all his counsellors”—“but,” he added, “it was not we who thus defeated the king of France, but God and our right did so by our means.”[1252] These words and the action on which they are a comment are alike characteristic of the Lion-heart. Amid all the overwhelming political, diplomatic, and financial cares of his latter years, he was still knight-errant enough to glory in a wholly [Sidenote: =1197-8=] unnecessary adventure which might have cost him his life, and which had, after all, failed of its practical object, the capture of Philip. It may, however, have been partly prompted by another motive than the spirit of mere knightly daring. Richard was literally at his wits’ end for money; and without money the league which he had been forming against Philip was certain to break up ere long. His alliances with Flanders and the other feudataries of the Empire and with some of the French king’s own subjects rested on a basis of subsidies, revenues, or substantial rewards of some kind, promised to the nobles in consideration of their pledge to assist him against Philip. To none of them had he as yet been able to fulfil his plighted word in this respect. Château-Gaillard was well worth the cost of its building, but the cost was great. “You know there is not a penny at Chinon” (where the Angevin treasure was kept), he wrote in a _sirventes_ addressed to the brother-counts of Auvergne some time in the years 1197-9.[1253] His means were, in fact, insufficient for the payment of even the troops absolutely necessary to guard the Norman frontier. When he found himself so close to Philip on the road to Gisors there may have flashed across his excited brain the dream of a capture which should not only place his rival in his power, but lead to the filling of his coffers as those of the Emperor had so recently been filled, with the ransom of a king. He had already been reduced to the expedient of a change of his royal seal, the repudiation of all grants made under the old one, and the exaction of heavy payments for their confirmation or renewal.[1254] On his new seal the three lions passant-gardant appeared for the first time as the armorial bearings of the king of England. Its earliest impression now known is attached to a charter dated May 22, 1198[1255]; and the process of cancelling old grants [Sidenote: =1197-8=] and selling new ones went on till the very eve of his death eleven months later.[1256]

Neither Richard nor Philip, in fact, was in a position to make war on a scale large enough to bring it to a decisive issue. The raids and counter-raids therefore continued. [Sidenote: _Sept._] Philip burned Evreux, ravaged the country as far as Beaumont-le-Roger, and would have burned Neufbourg, had not John anticipated him by firing it at the moment of the French attack. Mercadier raided Abbeville at fair-time, and returned with a mass of plunder taken from the French merchants there. The earl of Leicester made an attempt on Pacy.[1257] Richard built a new fort on an island in the Seine and gave it the provocative name of Boutavant, “Push-forward”; Philip began to build one facing it, which in a like spirit of bravado he called Gouletot, “Swallow-all.”[1258] An obscure entry in the Norman Exchequer Roll for the year seems to imply that the kings reverted for a moment to a scheme which four years before had been proposed and rejected, for the settlement of their quarrel by a fight between selected champions, to be held in presence of both at Les Andelys[1259]; but again the proposal led to nothing. At length Archbishop Hubert, being in Normandy, went at Philip’s desire and with Richard’s consent to the French court to discuss terms of peace. Philip offered to restore all the territory and castles which he had seized except Gisors, concerning the rightful ownership of which he declared himself willing to accept the decision of six Norman barons to be chosen by himself and six French barons to be chosen by Richard. The English king, however, would make no peace save on condition of its including the count of Flanders and all the other feudataries of France who had transferred their homage to himself; so the negotiations resulted only in another truce till S. Hilary’s day.[1260] At the appointed time the kings [Sidenote: _Jan. 13_] came to a meeting between Vernon and Les Andelys; Richard on the Seine in a boat, from which he refused to land, Philip on horseback on the river-bank. The colloquy was adjourned, seemingly to give opportunity for the intervention of a mediator, Peter of Capua, a cardinal [Sidenote: _Jan._] whom the new Pope Innocent III had recently sent to France as legate. By the advice of Peter and of some magnates on both sides, the truce was prolonged for a term of five years; it was confirmed by oath, and both kings dismissed their troops, bidding them return to their homes.[1261]

The biographer of Philip Augustus says that “through the trickery of the king of England” the agreement was not confirmed by an exchange of hostages.[1262] It may have been on this plea that four French counts through whose territories Mercadier and his men had to pass on their way southward ventured to ignore the truce and set upon the Routiers, many of whom they slew. Philip swore that this outrage had no sanction from him. Presently afterwards, however, when Richard, thinking Normandy was safe for a while, was on his way to visit his southern dominions, Philip not only resumed the fortification of Gouletot, but also destroyed the neighbouring forest. At these tidings Richard hurried back to Normandy, and sent his chancellor to the French court to declare the truce dissolved unless Philip would pull down the new fortress. Philip, urged by the legate, promised to do so. Then Richard declared he would have either a full settlement of all their disputes or no peace at all. A form of peace was drawn up; its provisions were that the king of France should restore to the king of England all the lands which he had taken from him either in war or by any other means, except Gisors, in compensation for which he granted to Richard the gift of the archbishopric of Tours; Philip’s son Louis was to marry Richard’s niece, the daughter of the king of Castille; and furthermore, Philip was to swear that he would to the utmost of his power assist Richard’s nephew Otto to obtain the imperial crown. Richard on his part was to give to Louis of France, with the hand of his niece, twenty thousand marks of silver and the castle of Gisors as her dowry. The execution of the treaty, however, was postponed till Richard should return from Poitou.[1263]

The word “Poitou” had in recent years acquired another meaning besides its original one. Richard had never styled himself count of Poitou since his accession to the Crown[1264]; it is doubtful whether he had ever done so since its restoration to his mother in 1185. The title by which he asserted his rights over his southern dominions was that of “Duke of the Aquitanians.” His grant of the county of Poitou to Otto in 1195 seems to have been merely verbal, ratified by neither charter nor investiture, and carrying with it no permanent authority and no legal claim to the higher dignity of the Aquitanian dukedom; and on Otto’s return to Germany in June 1198 Richard resumed full possession of the county.[1265] The word “Aquitaine” was dropping out of use. The administration of all the king-duke’s dominions south of the Loire was carried on by seneschals appointed by and acting for him, one for “Gascony” and one for “Poitou”; the former appellation representing the country south of the Garonne, the latter embracing the county of Poitou proper and all its dependencies or underfiefs between the Garonne and the Loire.[1266] Richard’s last visit to any part of these dominions had been a flying one in December 1195, when he kept Christmas at Poitiers.[1267] A double motive seems now to have urged him southward. The troublesome half-brothers Aimar of Angoulême and Aimar of Limoges were, it appears, again plotting or at least credibly suspected of plotting treason against him.[1268] He had also been informed of a wonderful treasure-trove on the land of a baron in the Limousin. A peasant ploughing near Châlus had met with an obstacle which, when disinterred, proved to consist of something which is described [Sidenote: _March_] as “an Emperor with his wife, sons, and daughters, all of pure gold, and seated round a golden table,” and also, it appears, some ancient coins.[1269] The lord of Châlus was one Achard[1270]; from him the treasure was claimed by the viscount Aimar as overlord. Richard, as Aimar’s overlord, claimed it in his turn,[1271] and by the law of treasure-trove his claim seems to have been justified. According to one account, Aimar actually sent him no small portion of what had been found; but Richard would be content with nothing short of the whole.[1272] He seems to have suspected that the remainder was still hidden at Châlus, for it was to Châlus that he laid siege, on Wednesday, March 4.[1273] Achard himself had fled to the viscount of Limoges for protection.[1274] In vain he begged for a truce till after Easter, and offered to submit to a sentence of the royal court of France.[1275]

The castle of Châlus, whose ruined keep-tower still stands on a low hill above the little river Tardoire, contained at the moment about forty persons; only two of these were knights, and some of the others were women.[1276] For three [Sidenote: _March 24-6_] days Richard’s miners dug under the walls while he with his crossbowmen rode round about them, discharging a [Sidenote: _Friday March 26_] shower of missiles into the enclosure.[1277] On the third day the little garrison offered to surrender on condition of safety for life and limb and the retention of their arms; but Richard refused, swearing he would capture and hang them all.[1278] That afternoon he again rode forth, accompanied by Mercadier, round about the castle, shooting with his crossbow at any man whom he saw on the wall; and this time he rashly went without any defensive armour except an iron headpiece and a buckler. His daring was more than equalled by one man among the besieged, who with a crossbow in one hand and a frying-pan in the other had stood nearly all day on a bastion of the tower, dexterously turning aside with his makeshift shield every missile aimed at him, and carefully scanning the ranks of the besiegers,[1279] evidently in the hope of discovering their leader. From one account it appears that when at last his opportunity came, he had discharged all his quarrels, and the bolt which he shot at the unprotected figure was one of the enemy’s own which he snatched from a crevice in the wall where it had stuck just within his reach.[1280] Richard, hearing the sound of the missile in the air, looked up and greeted the bowman with a shout of applause. That look cost him his life. He bent down to shelter himself under his shield, but too late to avoid the arrow; it struck his left shoulder at the joint of the neck, glanced downward, and became fixed in his side.[1281] No one but Mercadier was near enough to see exactly what had occurred. To him Richard gave orders for a general assault to be made on the castle[1282]; then, quietly and alone, he rode back to his tent. There he tried to pull out the arrow; the shaft broke, leaving the barb imbedded in the wound, and he was compelled to send for a surgeon to extract it. One was found, says an English chronicler, “among that accursed tribe, the followers of the impious Mercadier,” and it is to this man’s handling of the case that the same writer ascribes its fatal termination; but this is sufficiently accounted for by his own description of the drawbacks attending the operation, performed hurriedly by lantern-light on a patient so fat that the steel, buried in his flesh, was extremely difficult to find, and when found, still more difficult to remove[1283]; a patient, moreover, whose character combined with his physical constitution to make him an extremely unmanageable invalid. A second doctor seems to have been afterwards called in;[1284] but in spite of all the remedies that were applied the wound grew daily more painful and its swelling and discoloration more ominous.[1285]

A furious assault made by Mercadier on Châlus after the king was wounded had resulted in the capture of the castle and its defenders. Richard caused them all to be hanged, except the man who had shot him.[1286] He then despatched some of his troops to besiege two neighbouring castles, Nontron and Montagut, “for he purposed in his heart to destroy all the castles and towns of the viscount of Limoges.”[1287] Soon, however, he began to realize that his days were numbered. He wrote to his mother, who was at Fontevraud, asking her to come to him. Every precaution had been taken to prevent his condition becoming known outside the little group of four trusted nobles who alone were admitted to his presence;[1288] from these he now exacted an oath of fealty to John as his destined successor, to whom he devised the kingdom of England and all his other lands. He ordered that all his castles and three parts of his treasure should likewise be delivered to John; he bequeathed all his jewels to his nephew Otto of Germany, and the remaining fourth part of his treasure to be distributed among his servants and the poor.[1289] He sent for the captive crossbowman and questioned him: “What evil have I done to thee? Why hast thou slain me?” “Thou didst slay my father and my two brothers with thine own hand; thou wouldst have slain me likewise. Take on me what vengeance thou wilt; freely will I suffer the greatest torments thou canst think of, now that thou, who hast brought so many and so great evils on the world, art stricken to death.” Richard answered, “I forgive thee my death,” and ordered that the man should be liberated and sent away safely with a gift of a hundred English shillings.[1290] Then he called for a chaplain, made his confession and received the Holy Communion.[1291] By this time probably his mother was with him; she herself records that she was present at his death, and that he “placed all his trust, after God, in her, that she would make provision for his soul’s welfare with motherly care to the utmost of her power.”[1292] He made his own arrangements for the disposal of his body, ordering that his brain and some internal organs should be buried in the ancient Poitevin abbey of Charroux, his heart at Rouen, and the embalmed corpse at his father’s feet in the abbey church of Fontevraud.[1293] He [Sidenote: _April 6_] received Extreme Unction on April 6, the Tuesday in Passion week, “and as the day was closing, he also ended his earthly [Sidenote: _April 11_] day.”[1294] On Palm Sunday his body, wrapped in the robe in which he had been attired at his crown-wearing at Winchester five years before,[1295] was buried by his father’s old friend Bishop Hugh of Lincoln and his mother’s friend Abbot Luke of Torpenay in the place which he had chosen for it.[1296] His heart—said to be remarkable for its great size[1297]—was enclosed in a casket of gold and silver and placed, as a most precious treasure, among the holy relics in the cathedral church of Rouen.[1298]

NOTES

NOTE I

_Richard and Leopold of Austria at Acre_

The German account of the quarrel between Richard and the duke of Austria after the taking of Acre is as follows:

“Capta igitur civitate, rex Anglorum signa triumphalia sui exercitus turribus affigi praecepit, titulum victoriae ex toto sibimetipsi satis arroganter adscribens. Hacque de causa cum per civitatem transiret, vexillum ducis Leopoldi turri quam ipse cum suis obtinuerat affixum vidit, suumque non esse recognoscens, cujusdam sit percontatur. Qui Leopoldi ducis Orientalium esse accepto responso, eumque ex parte civitatem obtinuisse comperiens, maxima indignatione permotus vexillum turre dejici lutoque conculcari praecepit; insuper ducem verbis contumeliosis affectum sine causa injuriavit.” Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 323.

The English accounts are two:

(1) “Dux Austriae, et ipse unus ex veteribus obsessoribus Accaronis, regem Anglorum secutus a pari in suae sortis possessionem, quia praelato coram se vexillo visus fuit sibi partem vindicare triumphi; et si non de precepto, de voluntate tamen regis offensi, dejectum est vexillum ducis in coenum, et in ejus contumeliam a derisoribus conculcatum.” R. Devizes, 52. (2) “Cum enim civitatem Accon irrumperent Christiani, et diversi diversa civitatis hospitia caperent, in nobilissimo civitatis palatio signum ducis [Ostrici] elevatus est. Quod intuens rex et invidens, manu militum valida vexillum dejecit, ducemque tam grato spoliavit hospitio.” Gerv. Cant., i. 514.

Rigord (118) says: “Ducis Austriae vexillum circa Accon cuidam principi [rex Ricardus] abstulit et in cloacam profundam, in opprobrium ducis et dedecus, vilissime confractum dejecit.”

Otto is the only German authority on the subject: for the brief mention of it in _Ann. Colon._ (Pertz, xvii. 802), which is practically in agreement with him, cannot be considered as such, and Magnus of Reichensperg’s version (_ib._ 519) is of no value, because it places the incident not at Acre, but at the rebuilding of Ascalon, in January 1192, after Leopold had left Palestine (Kellner, _R. Löwenherz Deutsche Gefangenschaft_, 47-8). It is curious that the writer who gives the fullest details about Leopold’s Crusade and about the later relations between Leopold and Richard gives no account of the affair at all, merely saying with reference to Leopold’s capture and imprisonment of the king “Una et efficiens causa fuit quod eum in obsidione Aconae quasi abjectum reputavit” (Ansbert, in Appendix to Preface to R. Howden, iii. cxl). It is also noticeable that Otto writes as if Richard had claimed possession of the whole of Acre for himself alone; there is no mention of Philip. Probably the tower to which Leopold’s banner was affixed stood in Richard’s half of the city.

NOTE II

_The Capitulation of Acre_

The terms on which Karakoush and El-Meshtoub agreed to surrender Acre are given, in various forms, by nine contemporary or almost contemporary authorities.

(1) King Richard, in a letter to the Abbot of Clairvaux, R. Howden, iii. 131.

(2) Bohadin, _Rec. Hist. Orient._, iii. 237; Schultens’s edition, 179.

(3) _Estoire de la Guerre Sainte_, ll. 5199-224, and _Itin. Reg. Ric._, 231, 232; these two are here practically identical and may be counted as one.

(4) _Gesta Ric._, 178, 179.

(5) R. Howden, iii. 120, 121.

(6) R. Diceto, ii. 94.

(7) R. Coggeshall, 32.

(8) R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 51, 52.

(9) Ibn Alathyr, _Rec. Hist. Orient._, II. 46.

All these writers mention, among the conditions promised by the Moslems, the restoration of the relic of the Cross; and all except one—R. Devizes—mention also the release of a number of Christian prisoners: the king and R. Diceto say fifteen hundred; R. Coggeshall says seven hundred, some of whom the kings were to select; Ambrose and the _Itinerarium_ say two thousand prisoners of distinction and five hundred of lower rank; the _Gesta_ say fifteen hundred ordinary prisoners and two hundred knights, these latter to be specially selected by the kings; R. Howden follows this latter account, but reduces the first number to a thousand; Ibn Alathyr mentions only the “selected” prisoners, whose number he gives as five hundred. The earlier of the two extant redactions of Bohadin (_Recueil_, iii. 237) has “five hundred prisoners of ordinary condition, and one hundred others of rank, whom the Franks might ask for by name”; but in the later redaction (represented by Schultens’s edition) the figures are fifteen hundred and one thousand. This later redaction, of which the only known MS. was written in the year after Bohadin’s death, is considered not to be his own work (_Recueil_, iii. 374); but its variations from the earlier recension seem entitled to some consideration, as they are so nearly contemporary and may have the force of corrections; this may be the case in the passage under consideration here.

Neither King Richard, R. Diceto, nor R. Devizes, mentions a money payment. The _Estoire_, _Itinerarium_, _Gesta Ricardi_, R. Howden, Bohadin, and Ibn Alathyr make the promised sum two hundred thousand “bezants” (_Est._), “talentorum Saracenicorum” (_Itin._), “dinars” (Bohadin and Ibn Alathyr). R. Coggeshall absurdly says seven hundred thousand bezants. The only authorities for the special payment promised to Conrad are the two Moslem ones, and as to its amount the two recensions of Bohadin again differ; the earlier says four thousand gold pieces, the later fourteen thousand, viz. ten thousand to Conrad himself and four thousand to his knights. Ibn Alathyr also says Conrad was to have fourteen thousand; and the later recension of Bohadin is followed by Abu Shama in his extract from that author (_Recueil_, v. 25, 26), as to both the number of prisoners and the amount of money.

The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ say that “the chief men among the Turks in Acre” were to be held as hostages by the Franks till the conditions of the treaty were fulfilled. Richard and Bohadin say, and the _Gesta_, R. Howden, and R. Coggeshall imply, that the hostages were to comprise the whole garrison. The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ assert that the conditions were offered by the Turks in Acre with Saladin’s knowledge and consent; and the _Itinerarium_ adds that the term appointed for their fulfilment was that day month, _i. e._ August 12. The king says “Pactione etiam ex parte Saladini plenius firmata ... diemque ad haec omnia persolvenda nobis constituit.” R. Diceto says “Qui” (_i. e._ the Saracens in Acre) “communicato cum suis consilio coeperunt tractare de pace talibus pactionibus quod Saladinus Sanctam Crucem certo die restitueret,” etc. The _Gesta_ and R. Howden make the term forty days from the surrender, _i. e._ August 20. Bohadin (238) represents Saladin as ignorant of the whole matter till after the surrender, and Ibn Alathyr and R. Coggeshall do the same; the latter says that Saladin “nimium ex animo consternatus, facturum quod petebatur se esse spopondit,” while the two Arab writers represent the Sultan as at first refusing to confirm the treaty and afterwards accepting its conditions, but, according to Bohadin, with a modification as to the term for payment which brings the date for the first instalment practically to the time named in the _Itinerarium_, viz. a month after the surrender.

NOTE III

_The Advance from the Two Casals to Ramlah_

The Frank writers give no precise date for the advance of the host in 1191 from “between the two Casals” to the neighbourhood of Ramlah. Ambrose says they reached the former position on the eve of All Saints, and stayed there “full fifteen days or more” (_Est._, ll. 7199-209). The _Itin._, 289-90, agrees with him. This should mean that they set out again on November 15 or 16. Ambrose, according to the printed text of the _Estoire_, says the journey to the next encampment took two days: “L’ost erra par mi la plaine, Sor les biaus chevals peus d’orge; _Vint en deus jors_ entre Seint Jorge e Rames; la s’allerent tendre Por plus gent e vitaille atendre” (ll. 7464-8). Thus they would arrive there—_i. e._ between Lydda and Ramlah—on November 17 or 18. The poet further says that the weather afterwards compelled them to take shelter within the two towns, “e fumes la bien sis semaines” (ll. 7471-7; _Itin._, 298-9, says the same). We presently find that they made their next advance—to Beit Nuba—on January 3. Thus we arrive at November 22 as the date of entering Lydda and Ramlah, and the encampment “in the plain” appears to have lasted five or six days (November 17 or 18-22). Our best Arab authority, Bohadin, unluckily does not mention the matter. Ibn Alathyr (_Rec. Hist. Or._, II. i. 54) says “the Franks set out from their camp at Jaffa for Ramlah on 3 Dulkaada” = November 22; the same date is given for their “advance in the direction of Ramlah” by Abu Shama (_ib._, v. 48), but without any clue to his authority for the statement. Ibn Alathyr gives this same date, 3 Dulkaada, as that on which “the Franks advanced from Ramlah to Natroun” (_l.c._); this is doubtless a confusion, made either by author or scribe, between “Dulkaada” and “Dulheggia,” as Richard—though, indeed, not the host—did remove to Natroun on December 22 or 23 (= 3 or 4 Dulheggia). The Frankish and the Arab authorities may be partially reconciled by taking the “six weeks” of Ambrose and the _Itinerarium_ as covering the whole period spent not only within the towns, but also “between” them. In that case, however, the stay between the two Casals must have been more than fifteen days; it could not have been less than twenty days, indeed twenty-two seems a more reasonable reckoning, for it is hard to see how two days can possibly have been spent in marching even from Casal of the Plains (the more remote of these two Casals) to either Lydda or Ramlah, a distance of less than eight miles. One writer does expressly mention “twenty-two days” in his account of this part of the Crusade; but he does so in connexion with the sojourn, not between the Casals, but between Lydda and Ramlah. Ambrose’s lines, 7464-8, quoted above, are in the _Itinerarium_ (298) represented as follows: “Exercitus noster fixis tentoriis _inter S. Georgium et Ramulam sedit viginti et duobus_ diebus, ut gentem expectaret venturam et annonam.”

To me this passage in the _Itinerarium_ suggests a possibility of reconciling practically all the dates and notes of time given by all our authorities, Arab and Frankish, relating to this matter. It is not inconceivable that the original authority—whoever he may have been—for the “twenty-two days” had through a confusion of memory substituted the duration of the stay between the two Casals for that of the stay near and in Lydda and Ramlah, and _vice versa_. In that case the correct dates would stand thus: Between the two Casals, twenty-two days, November 1-22; in the plain between Lydda and Ramlah, “full fifteen days,” November 23-December 8; retirement into the two cities December 8, and further advance (to Beit Nuba) on January 3, “six weeks” from the date of encampment between them. Whether these coincidences are merely accidental, and the “twenty-two days” a sheer blunder due to the Latin “translator” having misread “vint _en_ deux jors” as “vint _e_ deus jors,” in Ambrose’s line 7466, or whether in that line as we now have it _en_ is a scribe’s error for _e_, and ll. 7464-6 should be read as a single sentence, with a parenthesis stuck into the middle of it for the sake of rime—“E l’ost erra par mi la plaine (Sor les biaus chevals peus d’orge) Vint e deus jors entre Seint Jorge e Rames”—whether the “translator” rendered _erra_ in l. 7464 by _sedit_ because he thought thus to make better sense of his version of l. 7466, or whether the poet meant that the host roamed about the plain in which its camp was set, and perhaps even shifted the camp about, in vain efforts to avoid the enemies and the rain (see ll. 7469-75, especially l. 7473, “Iceles pluies _nos chacerent_”); these are questions involving too many other questions for a discussion of them to be attempted here.

NOTE IV

_Casal des Plains and Casal des Bains_

I have ventured, in defiance of the printed text of the _Estoire_, to follow the writer of the _Itinerarium_ in giving to Richard’s lurking-place on the night of January 2-3, 1192, the name of Casal of the Baths. “Casellum Balneorum” occurs in the _Itinerarium_ twice. In p. 298 we read that while the host lay between Lydda and Ramlah “pluviae a sedibus nostris nos exturbabant, intantum ut rex Jerosolimorum et gens nostra infra S. Georgium ad hospitandum se transferrent et in Ramulam, _comes vero de S. Paulo ad Casellum Balneorum_.” The last eight words are not represented at all in the _Estoire_. In pp. 306, 307, of the _Itinerarium_ we are told: “Tertia post Circumcisionem Domini die, cum exercitus noster ad progrediendum” [from Lydda and Ramlah to Beit Nuba] “se sollicitus expediret, deformium multitudo Turcorum qui eadem nocte praeterita juxta Casellum de _Planis_ in insidiis delituerant inter frutecta prosiliit diluculo in viam observandam per quam noster transiturus erat exercitus.... Rex quippe Ricardus, cui prius innotuerat de praedictis Turcorum insidiis, propterea quaque eadem nocte ad Casellum _Balneorum_ consederat in insidiis, ut videlicet insidiantibus insidiaret, mane progrediens,” etc. In the _Estoire_ the corresponding passage runs thus: “Tier jor d’an noef, la matinee, Esteit une ovre destinee; Sarazins, les laides genz brunes, Sor le Casal des Plains as dunes Le seir devant ja se bucherent, E tote nuit illoc guaiterent Desqu’al matin que il saillirent Al chemin de l’ost.... Le rei d’Engletere aveit, Qui cel embuchement saveit, Por ço al Casal des _Plains_ geu,” etc. (ll. 7717-24, 7729-31).

It has been suggested that the “Casellum Balneorum” of _Itin._, 298, may represent Amwas (= “Fountains”), otherwise called Nicopolis (see Stubbs’s note to _Itin._, _l.c._). This identification is possible; but it seems very unlikely that a small fraction of the host should, for no apparent reason, put itself so nearly into the lion’s mouth by going to camp eight or nine miles in advance of the rest, and less than two miles from the encampment of Saladin, which at that time was at Natroun. Moreover, in a later passage common to _Estoire_ (l. 9846) and _Itinerarium_ (369) we find “la fontaine d’Esmals,” “ad fontem Emaus,” in a context which plainly shows that these names stand for Amwas-Nicopolis; but in p. 307 of _Itinerarium_ the context seems to preclude an identification of Casellum Balneorum with Emaus = Amwas, and to point to some place much further north or north-west; and later commentators have found such a place, bearing a name which translates the Latin one more exactly than Amwas, in Umm-el-Hummum, near Mirabel. On the other hand, the extant text of the _Estoire_, as we have seen, has nothing at all answering to “Castellum Balneorum”; it makes the Turkish ambush and the king spend the night of January 2-3 at, or close to, one and the same place, the Casal of the Plains. Whence, then, did the Latin writer get his “Casal of the Baths”? He can hardly have invented it for himself. If his work be really a translation of that of Ambrose, he must either have made it from a copy which had _Bains_, not _Plains_, in l. 7731, or he must have had some other source of information which made him deliberately substitute “Baths” for “Plains” in his rendering of that line. The substitution cannot be explained as a misreading on his part, since “Casal des Plains” in l. 7720 is correctly represented in his text by “Casellum de Planis.” That he knew, from a source other than the _Estoire_, something about the Casal of the Baths is clear from his earlier mention of that place, in p. 298. A different theory as to the relation between the two books suggests that that source may have been personal knowledge. However this may be, his second mention of “Casellum Balneorum” certainly makes the passage in which it occurs far more intelligible than the corresponding passage in the existing text of the _Estoire_. Ambrose’s story, as it stands there, is scarcely credible. The Turks and the king lie in wait for one another all night, the former “on the sandhills above the Casal of the Plains,” the latter at the Casal of the Plains itself, yet neither party catches the other till, evidently to the utter surprise of the Turks, they meet before the camp at Ramlah or Lydda, to which they must, if this version of the affair be correct, have ridden at almost the same time, parallel with and in close proximity to each other for about eight miles, and almost from one and the same starting-point! Surely, by the light—whencesoever derived—of the Latin version, we can see that either Ambrose himself or the scribe of the extant MS. of his work has erroneously written _Plains_ instead of _Bains_ in l. 7731; a mistake which might very easily be made, owing to the occurrence of “Plains” only eleven lines above, and the absence of any mention of Casal des Bains elsewhere in the poem.

NOTE V

_Richard’s Homage to the Emperor_

Seven contemporary or nearly contemporary writers state that Richard, to purchase his freedom, did homage to Henry VI. Three of these—one English and two German—assert distinctly that the kingdom of England was included in this homage; two of the others—one German and one French—imply the same.

(1) “Ricardus rex Angliae in captione Henrici Romanorum imperatoris detentus, ut captionem illam evaderet, consilio Alienor matris suae deposuit se de regno Angliae et tradidit illud imperatori sicut universorum domino; et investivit eum inde per pilleum suum; sed imperator, sicut praelocutum fuit, statim reddidit ei, in conspectu magnatium Alemanniae et Angliae, regnum Angliae praedictum, tenendum de ipso pro quinque millia librarum sterlingorum singulis annis de tributo solvendis; et investivit eum inde imperator per duplicem crucem de auro.” R. Howden, iii. 202, 203.

(2) The _Annals of Marbach_ (Pertz, xvii. 165) say Richard was released “tota terra sua, Anglia et aliis terris suis propriis, imperatori datis et ab eo in beneficio receptis.”

(3) “Legium ipsi [imperatori] faciens hominium, coronam regni sui ab ipso recepit,” _Gesta Episc. Halberstad._ (Pertz, xxiii. 110).

(4) “Terram propriam ... imperatori tradidit et a manu imperatoris sceptro investitus suscepit. Juravitque fidelitatem Romano Imperatori et Romano Imperio et privilegio exinde facto propria manu subscripsit. Tantam itaque devotionem regis intuens imperator sceptrum regium quod in manu sua tenebat regi contulit, ut hoc insigni dono in posterum uteretur.... Acta sunt haec apud Maguntium.” _Ann. Salsburg. Additamenta_, Pertz, xiii. 240.

(5) William the Breton represents Richard as offering to give the Emperor a hundred thousand marks, and adding: “Meque sceptrumque meum subjecta fatebor.... Rex igitur dictum re firmat, et inde recedit liber.” _Philippis_, lib. iv., vv. 419, 426-7.

(6) “Accepta infinita summa pecuniae et hominio ejus ... [imperator regem] absolutum permittit abire.” _Reineri Ann._, Pertz, xvi. 651.

(7) “[Richardus] Imperio postquam jurans se subdidit, inquit: ‘Vivat in aeternum lux mea, liber eo.’”—_P. de Ebulo_, ll. 1087-8.

Of all these authorities, only the first is of any real value. The German sources for this period are all mere monastic or ecclesiastical chronicles; the Annals of Marbach are among the best. The Acts of the Bishops of Halberstadt date from the thirteenth century. Reiner’s Annals are a section, ending in 1230, of a group of Chronicles of Liége; Reiner himself was born in 1155. The Additions to the Salzburg Annals are absolutely worthless; they are full of absurdities; and some of their statements about Richard are so obviously unhistorical that their German editor in his footnotes twice denounces them as “fables”—“Hoc jam fabulis plena de Richardi regis gestis” (p. 238)—“Iterum fabulae sequuntur prioribus pejores” (p. 240). Peter of Ebulo and William of Armorica can only have had their information at—to say the least—second hand, and from sources hostile to Richard; Peter was the panegyrist of Henry VI, William the historiographer of Philip Augustus; both, too, wrote in verse, and are open to the suspicion of a liberal use of poetic licence to exalt their respective heroes and diminish the glory of him who was the most illustrious rival of those two sovereigns. Had we only these six writers to deal with, we might be justified in treating the whole story as a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of an act of homage done to Henry by Richard for the kingdom of Burgundy, although, oddly enough, not one of them so much as mentions Burgundy at all. But Roger of Howden is not so easy to dispose of. He was a sober-minded and well-informed English historian, whose work in many places shows that he had access to the best official sources of contemporary information; in his case misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the subject are both alike almost inconceivable; and, moreover, his version of the matter is indirectly corroborated by another writer whose general accuracy and correct information rank as high, and whose facilities for learning the truth on this particular point were probably even greater than those of Roger himself. Ralf de Diceto (ii. 113) writes as follows: “Pactiones initae sunt plures inter imperatorem et regem, ad persolvendam non spectantes pecuniam, sed ad statum regis intervertendum; inter quas quicquid insertum est ab initio vitiosum, quicquid contra leges, contra canones, contra bonos mores indubitanter conceptum, licet ex parte regis et suorum fidelium ad hoc observandum fuerit jusjurandum adauctum, emissa licet patentia scripta, licet in mundum universitatis recepta, licet a partibus absoluta, quia tamen contra jus elicita robur firmitatis obtinere non debent in posterum, nec ullo tractu temporis convalescere.” These words seem distinctly to point to something more than homage merely for the kingdom of Arles, a homage which there could surely be no reason for Ralf or anyone else to denounce as so “vicious from the outset, so contrary to law, morality, and right” as to be utterly null and void. We must also remember that Ralf was a close friend of Archbishop Walter of Rouen, who was in correspondence with him at this very time, and who was present at the whole ceremony of Richard’s release.

NOTE VI

_Richard, William of Longchamps, and the Great Seal_

Roger of Howden in his account of the year 1194, after giving the terms of the truce made between the representatives of the two kings on July 23 in the form of a proclamation addressed “to all whom it may concern” by Drogo de Merlo the Constable of France, Anselm the Dean of S. Martin’s at Tours, and Urse the French king’s chamberlain (iii. 257-60), diverges to English affairs (260-7) and then returns to continental ones as follows:

“Deinde [Ricardus Rex] veniens in Normanniam moleste tulit quicquid factum fuerit de supradictis treugis, et imputans cancellario suo hoc per eum fuisse factum, abstulit ab eo sigillum suum, et fecit sibi novum sigillum fieri, et mandavit per singulas terras suas quod nihil ratum foret quod fuerat per vetus sigillum suum; tum quia cancellarius ille operatus fuerat inde minus discrete quam esset necesse, tum quia sigillum illud perditum erat quando Rogerus Malus Catulus, vice-cancellarius suus, submersus erat in mare ante insulam de Cipro. Et praecepit rex quod omnes qui cartas habebant venirent ad novum sigillum suum ad cartas suas renovandas.” R. Howden, iii. 267.

This story is certainly not strictly accurate; it was not till 1198 that Richard changed his seal, and if the seal was withdrawn from William of Ely in 1194, it was restored to him almost immediately, and he remained the king’s chancellor and trusted friend to the end of Richard’s life. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Richard did momentarily contemplate in 1194 a change of seal and the consequent requirement of confirmation of charters issued under the old seal. When this actually took place four years later, he himself stated his reasons for it as follows: “Quod” [sc. primum sigillum nostrum] “quia aliquando perditum erat, et dum capti essemus in Alemannia in aliena potestate constitutum, mutatum est.” (Confirmation of a charter to Ely, July 1, 1198, printed in _Ramsey Cartulary_, ed. Hart and Lyons, i. 115, and also in Round’s _Feudal England_, 542). Mr. Round dismisses Roger’s story as sheer fiction, on the ground that the second reason here given by Richard is “wholly and essentially different” from the first reason given by Roger. Even if this be so, it does not necessarily follow that the whole of Roger’s story is either a fiction, or a delusion, or misdated. Richard’s own statement of his motives is obviously a mere excuse; the self-evident fact that while he was in prison the seal was necessarily “in the power of another” might be a ground for annulling acts passed under it during that time, but could be no genuine reason for revoking likewise all other acts passed under it. One at least of his excuses, however, is far more likely to have been invented in 1194 than in 1198. The king’s temporary loss of control over the seal in 1193-4 might be a colourable pretext for getting rid of the discredited instrument at the earliest possible moment, but could in no way account for its repudiation after it had been, without necessity, suffered to remain in use for four years.

INDEX

Abou Bekr, 251, 256

Achard of Châlus, 325

Acre, Philip arrives at, 145;
siege of, 154, 161-162;
negotiations for surrender, 162-164;
surrender of, 164;
discussions about terms, 169-171;
slaughter of garrison, 172;
disturbances at, 211;
capitulation of, 331-332

Aixe taken by Richard, 20

Alfonso II, King of Aragon, 11, 56

Aloysia of France, betrothed to Richard, 9;
her promised dowry, 22;
disputes about, 25, 62, 67, 72;
betrothal renewed, 65, 82;
marriage with John proposed, 86;
engagement to Richard finally broken off, 136-137;
sent back to France, 302;
married, 313

Amalric I, king of Jerusalem, 158

Amwas, 233

Andely, 305, 308, 309;
disputed between archbishop and king, 309;
Richard’s building at, 310-311

Angoulême, disputed succession to, 39-41

Angoulême, Aimar, count of, 39, 41 note 4, 44-45, 74, 297

Angoulême, Elias, count of, 41 note 4

Angoulême, Maud, heiress of, 39

Angoulême, Vulgrin III, count of, 19, 20, 29, 31, 38

Angoulême, William IV, count of, 5, 7, 15, 20, 29, 38

Angoulême, William V, count of, 39, 41 note 4

Anjou, Stephen, seneschal of, 93

Aquitaine, Ralf de Diceto’s description of, 3;
its extent and boundaries, 4;
risings in, 5, 7, 8;
Richard made duke of, 9;
its feudal position in 1169, 10;
rebels in, 15, 40-44;
ravages of Routiers in, 51, 53;
end of rebellion, 55-56;
Henry proposes to transfer it to John, 50, 60;
invaded by John and Geoffrey, 62;
Henry II’s dealings with, 65;
revolts in, 276, 297;
disuse of the name in Richard’s later years, 324

Aragon, Alfonso, king of, _see_ Alfonso

Arras besieged by Baldwin of Flanders, 315;
relieved by Philip Augustus, _ib._

Arsuf, battle of, 185-188

Arthur of Britanny, _see_ Britanny

Ascalon, 177;
its importance, 190;
razed by Saladin, _ib._;
rebuilding of, 209;
Richard at, 214;
negotiations concerning, 257-259;
again dismantled, 260

Aslam, Emir, 235-237

“Assassins,” 301

Athlit, 179

Austria, Leopold, duke of, 166, 330

Auvergne, rival claims upon, 7, 26-27, 94;
Richard’s successes in, 315

Bagnara, La, 126

Baldwin IV, king of Jerusalem, 158

Baldwin V, king of Jerusalem, 158

Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, _see_ Canterbury

Barres, William des, 78, 79, 135, 138, 179, 187

Bath, Savaric, bishop of, 275

Beauvais, bishop of, captured by Mercadier, 315

Bedr-ed-Din, 230, 257-258

Beit Nuba, 205, 232, 240

Berengaria of Navarre, 62, 64;
joins Richard in Sicily, 136;
sails for Acre with Joan, 139;
their adventures at sea, 141-142;
marriage and coronation, 145

Berry, feudal position of, 4;
Henry II in, 26

Bertin, Peter, seneschal of Aquitaine, 297

Béthune, Baldwin of, 93

Bigorre, count of, 21

Blanchegarde, 220, 221, 231

Blondel, 275

Bombrac, 198

Bonmoulins, meeting of kings at, 81-83

Bordeaux, Richard at, 21;
burnt by Routiers, 38

Bordeaux, William, archbishop of, 15

Born, Bertrand de, 40-42, 45-47, 56

Born, Constantine de, 40

Boulogne, Reginald, count of, 313

Bourges, promised as Aloysia’s dowry, 22

Boutavant, 322

“Brabantines,” 15, 38

Britanny, revolt in (1173), 14;
submits to Henry II, _ib._;
Richard’s relations with, 306, 313

Britanny, Arthur, duke of, 306

Britanny, Geoffrey, duke of, _see_ Geoffrey

Burgundy, Hugh, duke of, 55, 130, 207, 211, 218, 241

Burgundy or Provence, kingdom of, 283, 284

Cadoc, 307

Caesarea, 180, 181

Camville, Richard de, 148

Canebrake of Starlings, 225

Canterbury, Baldwin, Archbishop of, 120

Canterbury, Hubert, Archbishop of, _see_ Hubert

Canterbury, Richard at, 107

Capharnaum, Crusaders at, 179

Casal of the Baths, 203-204, 334-336

Casal Imbert, 212

Casal Maen, 198

Casal of the Plains (Yazour), 198, 204, 207, 334-336

Casal of the Straits, 179

Casals, the Two, 333-334

Castillon-sur-Agen, taken by Richard, 19

Castle Arnold, 232

Catania, meeting of Richard and Tancred at, 137

Celestine III, Pope, his warning to the Emperor, 317

Chabot, Theobald, 19

Châlus, treasure-trove at, 325;
besieged by Richard, _ib._;
taken by Mercadier, 327

Champagne, Henry, count of, _see_ Henry

Champagne, Theobald, count of, 313

Château-Gaillard, 312, 316

Châteauroux, dispute about, 21, 22;
taken by Henry II, 26;
besieged by Philip of France, 68;
truce made at, 69, 70;
taken by Philip, 77;
Richard’s attempt to regain it, 78

Châtillon, conference at, 80

Chinon, conference at, 7

Clairvaux, castle of, 46, 48

Cologne, election of emperor at, 318

Cologne, Adolf, archbishop of, 285-286

Colombières, meeting of kings at, 89

Comnenos, Isaac, _see_ Isaac

Conrad of Montferrat, 145, 151;
character, 159;
marries Isabel, _ib._, 160;
rivalry with Guy, 160, 167;
negotiations with Saladin, 194-195, 199;
negotiates with Richard, 210;
goes to Acre, 211;
returns to Tyre, _ib._;
declared to have forfeited the crown, 212;
again chosen king, 215;
slain, 216

Constance of Britanny, 306

Constance, heiress of Sicily, 124

Corfu, Richard at, 264, 266

Crispin, William, 315

Crocodiles, River of, 180, 181

Cross, relics of, 242

Curbaran, leader of Routiers, 53, 60

Cyprus, 141;
adventures of Joan and Berengaria off, 142;
English fleet reaches, 142-143;
conquest of, 143-148;
given to Guy of Lusignan, 261

Dangu surrendered to Richard, 315;
razed by Philip, _ib._

Darum, 209, 222-223, 245

“Dead River,” the, 182

Déols, Ralf of, 21

Dirnstein or Dürrenstein, Richard imprisoned at, 271

Drincourt, siege of, 14

Durham, Hugh of Puiset, bishop of, 103, 113

Eleanor, Queen, prophecy concerning, 1;
regent in Aquitaine, 8;
at Limoges, 11;
left guardian of Richard and Geoffrey, 12, 13;
joins the French party, 13;
imprisoned by Henry, 14;
released, 63;
receives surrender of Poitou from Richard, _ib._;
joins him in Sicily, 136;
returns to England, 138;
at Richard’s death, 328

El-Meshtoub, Seiffeddin, 163

Ely, William of Longchamps, bishop of, chancellor, 85, 113;
negotiates for Richard’s release, 279;
with Philip, 282;
deprived of the Seal, 298;
sent to Germany, 302-303

Emma, countess of Poitou, 5

Emmaus, _see_ Amwas

Emperors, _see_ Frederic, Henry

Excideuil, 43

Ezz-ed-Din, 230

Famagosta, Richard at, 146

“Far,” the, of Messina, 123

Fauvel, 146, 147, 187, 204

Felek-ed-Din, Emir, 236

Ferté-Bernard, La, meeting of kings at, 85

Figtrees, castle of, 225

Flanders, Baldwin VIII, count of, alliance with Richard, 313;
besieges Arras, 315;
arranges a conference between the kings, _ib._;
supports Otto’s election to the empire, 319;
takes St. Omer, _ib._

Flanders, Philip, count of, 68

Fleet, Richard’s, its adventures from England to Messina, 121-122;
at Messina, 138-139;
voyage to Rhodes, 139-141

Fontevraud, Henry II buried at, 91, 92;
Richard buried at, 329

France, kings of, _see_ Louis, Philip

Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor, his death, 155

Fréteval, battle at, 296-297

Gascony, 4, 324

Genoa, Richard and Philip at, 121

Geoffrey, son of Henry II and Eleanor, 13, 14, 49-51, 62, 66

Germany, condition of, under Henry VI, 272-273

Gisors, conferences at, 14, 16, 79, 94;
disputes about, 67;
surrendered to Philip, 280;
ceded to him, 305;
encounter between Richard and Philip at, 320

Glanville, Ranulf de, 102-103, 120

Gorizia, Mainard, count of, 268-269

Gouletot, 322

Graçay, 94

Grandmont, Henry II at, 7, 44

“Griffons,” 125-126, 131

Gué Saint Rémi, 111

Guy of Lusignan, 15, 71;
king of Jerusalem, 158;
his character, 159;
rivalry with Conrad of Montferrat, 160, 167;
on the march to Arsuf, 182;
goes to fetch troops from Acre, 194;
Cyprus given to, 261

Haïfa, Crusaders at, 179

Hainaut, count of, 313

Hautefort, castle of, 40, 56

Heraclius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 158

Henry VI, emperor, his relations with Philip of France, 265, 273;
with Leopold of Austria, 271-272;
with Richard, 274, 283-4;
sends Richard a crown, 301;
excommunicated, 317;
death, _ib._;
Richard’s homage to, 336-338

Henry II, king of England, 2;
at Limoges, 5, 6;
war with Toulouse, 6;
conference with Aquitanian nobles, 7;
with Raymond, _ib._;
relations with Louis VII of France, 6, 8, 9;
relations with Aquitaine, 10;
conference with Louis at Gisors, 14;
goes to Poitiers, 16;
recovers Saintes, _ib._;
meets Louis at Gisors, _ib._;
reconciled to Richard, 17;
receives homage of his sons, _ib._;
returns to England, 18;
plans for his sons, 23;
demands Aloysia’s dowry, 25;
marches on Berry, 26;
takes Châteauroux, etc., _ib._;
subdues the Limousin, _ib._;
meets Louis at Graçay, _ib._;
buys La Marche, 27;
joins Richard in Aquitaine, 44;
meets Aquitanian rebels at Grandmont, _ib._;
relations with his sons, 48, 49;
besieges Limoges, 52-54;
Limoges surrendered to, 55;
restores Hautefort to Bertrand de Born, 56;
proposes to transfer Aquitaine to John, 56-58, 62;
does homage to Philip, 61;
summons his sons to England, _ib._;
sends Geoffrey to Normandy, 63;
releases Eleanor, _ib._;
changes in his treatment of Richard, 65;
relations with Philip Augustus, 65-69;
schemes for John, 69;
takes the Cross, 72;
dispute with Richard about his Crusade, 73;
war with Philip, 78;
meets Philip at Gisors, 79;
at Châtillon, 80;
truce with Philip, 83;
meets him at La Ferté, 85, 86;
last struggle, 86;
submission at Colombières, 87;
last meeting with Richard, 90;
death, _ib._;
burial, 91-92

Henry, son of Henry II, his homage to Louis in 1169, 9;
conspires against his father, 12, 13;
goes to England with him, 18;
returns to Normandy, 19;
joins Richard, 20;
takes Châteauroux, 22;
in Aquitaine, 44, 45;
joins league against Richard, 46, 48;
relations with Richard, 49, 50;
with Aquitaine, _ib._;
at Limoges, 51;
takes Angoulême, 53;
repulsed from Limoges, 54;
death, 55

Henry, count of Champagne, 155, 156, 216;
chosen king of Jerusalem, 219;
marries Isabel, 220;
joins Richard at Darum, 224;
goes to collect reinforcements, 231;
rejoins Richard at Joppa, 252

Hodierna, Richard’s nurse, 2

Hubert, bishop of Salisbury, visits Richard in Germany, 279;
archbishop of Canterbury, _ib._;
his demands for the king refused in England, 307-308

Hugh, Saint, bishop of Lincoln, 308, 329

Interdict in Normandy, 309;
raised, 311

Isaac Comnenus, tyrant of Cyprus, 141-144, 146-148

Isabel of Jerusalem, 158, 159, 218-220

Issoudun, 94, 304

Jerusalem, Heraclius, patriarch of, 158, 159

Jerusalem, kingdom of, claimants to, 158;
settlement of their claims, 167

Jerusalem, kings of, _see_ Amalric, Baldwin, Conrad, Guy, Henry

Jerusalem, roads to, 189, 202

Jews, riot against, 97, 98

Joan, queen of Sicily, 124-125;
disputes about her dowry, 130;
her claims settled, 132;
sails for Acre with Berengaria, 139;
their adventures at sea, 141-142;
proposal for her marriage with Safadin, 197;
second marriage, 314

John of Anagni, legate in France, 85-86

John “Lackland,” Henry’s plans for, 58, 69, 70;
marches into Aquitaine, 62;
proposal for his marriage with Aloysia, 86;
relations with Richard, 93, 94;
Richard’s grants to, 102, 104-105;
meeting with Rees of South Wales, 106;
marriage, 104, 107;
plots with Philip, 277;
submits to Richard, 294

Joppa, struggle for, 247-255

Karakoush, 162-163

Kuweilfeh, 236

Lacroma, 266-267

Latroun, _see_ Natroun

Leicester, Robert, earl of, captured by Philip, 296

Lieu-Dieu, 116

Limasol, 141-146

Limoges, Aimar V, viscount of, defeated by Richard, 20;
goes on pilgrimage, 38;
wars with Richard, 40, 41, 44;
joins young Henry, 51;
surrenders to Henry II, 55;
war with Richard, 61;
claims treasure-trove at Châlus, 325

Limoges, rival jurisdictions at, 5, 6;
Richard proclaimed duke at, 11;
meeting of kings and nobles at, 11, 12;
taken by Richard, 20, 28;
settlement between Richard and rebels at, 44;
its walls destroyed, _ib._;
young Henry at, 51-52;
besieged by Henry II and Richard, 52-54;
surrendered, 55

“Lion Heart,” origin of the epithet, 34

“Lo Bar” (Lupicar), 60

Lomagne, Vézian, viscount of, 39

“Lombards” at Messina, 125-126, 131

London, Richard crowned at, 97;
anti-Jewish riot in, 98

Louis VII of France, his relations with Henry II, 6, 8, 9;
receives homage of Henry and his sons, 9;
league with the sons, 13;
meets Henry at Gisors, 14, 16;
knights Richard, 15

Lusignan, family of, 8 note 2

Lusignan, Geoffrey of, 15, 42-43, 74, 160, 191, 204

Lusignan, Guy of, _see_ Guy

Lusignan, Hugh of, 128

Lydda, 193

Malcolm IV, king of Scots, 107

Mandeville, William de, 79, 103, 112

Mans, Le, Henry’s flight from, 87, 88

Mantes attacked by Richard, 79

Marche, La, Adalbert, count of, 7, 27

Marche, La, county of, 4, 27, 43

Margarit, 127, 131

Markab, 148

Marshal, William, 79, 88, 92

“Mategriffon,” 131, 134, 156

Mercadier, 61;
takes Issoudun, 304;
captures the count of Auvergne, _ib._;
captures the bishop of Beauvais, 315;
raids Abbeville, 322;
attacked by French in time of truce, 323;
with Richard at Châlus, 326;
takes the castle, 327

Merle, 180, 181

Merlin’s prophecy, 1

Messina, English fleet reaches, 122;
Philip arrives at, 123;
“Far” of, _ib._;
Richard arrives at, 124;
Joan arrives at, 125;
mixed population of, _ib._;
hostility to the English, 125-126;
taken by Richard, 127-128;
treaty of, 137-138, 276 note;
Richard’s departure from, 139;
Emperor Henry VI dies at, 317

Mileto, Richard’s adventure at, 123

Mirabel, 203, 204

Montferrat, Conrad of, _see_ Conrad

Montferrat, William of, 158

Montjoie, 233, 243

Montlouis, treaty of, 17

Montmirail, conference of kings at, 9

Morocco, Emperor of, invades Spain, 302

Mortain, county of, granted to John, 104

Natroun, 195, 206, 232

Navarre, kings of, _see_ Sancho

Neckam, Alexander, Richard’s foster-brother, 2

Nonancourt surrendered to Richard, 307

Normandy, interdict in, 309;
raised, 311;
scutage of, 299

Nottingham, siege of, 287-288;
council at, 289

“Oc e No,” nickname of Richard, 34 note 6

Oxford, Richard born at, 2

Palestine, condition in 1190, 152-153

“Peace-makers,” 60

Périgord, Elias, count of, 43, 44, 297

Périgueux, 44

Peter, Cardinal, legate in France, 25, 323