Chapter II: Richard and France (3)

Philip Augustus, king of France, receives homage of count of
Angoulême, 45;
sends Routiers into Aquitaine, 53;
receives homage of Henry II, 61;
demands homage of Richard, 67;
besieges Châteauroux, 67, 68;
truce with Henry, 70;
demands Gisors, 72;
takes the Cross, _ib._;
intervenes in quarrel of Richard and Raymond of Toulouse, 76, 77;
takes Châteauroux, 77;
overruns Berry and Auvergne, 78;
burns Trou, _ib._;
meets Henry, 79-81;
quarrel with Richard at Châtillon, 80;
truce with Henry, 83;
meets him at La Ferté, 85-86;
captures Tours, 89;
treaty with Richard, 94-95;
meets him at Vézelay, 117;
crosses the Rhône, 119;
goes to Genoa, 121;
reaches Messina, 123;
conduct there, 127-128, 131, 136-137;
relations with Tancred, 137;
treaty with Richard, 137-138;
sails for Acre, 138;
at Acre, 145, 155-157;
disputes with Richard, 161, 165, 167;
goes home, 168;
relations with the Emperor, 273;
attempt on Normandy during Richard’s captivity, 276, 277;
conquers the Vexin, etc., 280;
negotiates with Henry VI, _ib._;
with Richard, 282-283;
his offers to Henry VI, 283-284;
besieges Verneuil, 294;
Vaudreuil, _ib._;
takes Fontaines, 295;
captures Earl of Leicester, 296;
defeated at Fréteval, _ib._;
truce with Richard, 298;
negotiates with him, 302-303;
burns Dieppe, 304;
takes Issoudun, and meets with Richard there, _ib._;
treaty with Richard, 305;
besieges Aumale, 306;
his allies, 313;
recovers Dangu, 315;
relieves Arras, _ib._;
makes terms with Flanders, _ib._;
meets Richard at Les Andelys, 315-316;
boast about Château-Gaillard, 316;
alliance with Philip of Suabia, 319;
burns Evreux, 322;
builds Gouletot, _ib._;
negotiates for peace, _ib._;
meets Richard again, 323;
makes truce for five years, 323;
breaks it, 324

Pilgrims’ Castle, 179

Pin, Jordan du, 127, 131

Pipewell, council at, 106

Poitiers, Richard at, 11, 324

Poitiers, William of, chaplain of Richard, 227

Poitou, county of, 4, 9;
granted to Otto of Saxony, 314;
use of the name in Richard’s later years, 324

Poitou, Otto, count of, _see_ Saxony

Pons besieged by Richard, 29;
surrendered, 31

Ponthieu, county of, 313

Préaux, William des, 196, 261

Provence, kingdom of, 283

Quercy conquered by Henry II, 6;
by Richard, 66;
restored to Toulouse, 314

Ragusa, Richard at, 266-267

Ramlah, 189, 193, 206-207

Rancogne, Geoffrey of, 8, 15, 29, 31, 74

Raymond “Brunus or Brenuus,” 51, 60

Reggio, 138

Rhodes, Richard at, 141

Richard the Lion Heart born, 2;
first betrothal, 6;
goes to Normandy, 7;
betrothed to Aloysia of France, 8, 9;
does homage to Louis for Poitou and Aquitaine, 9;
invested as duke at Poitiers and at Limoges, 11;
receives homage of Raymond of Toulouse, 12;
joins his rebel brothers, 13;
knighted by Louis VII, 15;
returns to Aquitaine, _ib._;
dealings with La Rochelle, 16;
seizes Saintes, _ib._;
expelled by Henry, _ib._;
submits to his father, 17;
does homage to him, _ib._;
deprived of his territories, 17, 18;
takes Castillon-sur-Agen, 19;
goes to England, _ib._;
returns to Aquitaine, _ib._;
subdues rebels in Poitou, defeats Brabantines at St. Maigrin, takes
Aixe and Limoges, and captures the count of Angoulême, 20;
keeps Christmas (1176) at Bordeaux, 21;
successes in Gascony, _ib._;
takes castle at Limoges from the viscount, 28;
marches on Gascony, _ib._;
dealings with Bigorre, 29;
keeps Christmas (1178) at Saintes, _ib._;
besieges Pons, _ib._;
his successes in Angoumois, _ib._;
siege of Taillebourg, 29-31;
goes to England, 31;
reinstated as count of Poitou, _ib._;
returns, _ib._;
relations with people of Aquitaine, 32;
person and character, 33-37;
oaths, 34 note 6;
subdues Lomagne, 39;
claims wardship of Angoulême, _ib._;
strife with Aimar of Limoges, 40;
conspiracy against, 42;
takes Puy-St.-Front, 43;
takes Excideuil, 44;
builds a castle at Clairvaux, 45-46;
in Normandy, 47, 48;
relations with Bertrand de Born, 47;
surrenders Clairvaux, 48;
relations with his father, 49;
with his brothers, 49, 50;
quarrel with young Henry, 50;
routs rebels in the Limousin, 51;
joins Henry at siege of Limoges, 54;
drives Routiers out of Angoumois and Saintonge, _ib._;
refuses to give up Aquitaine to John, 58-60, 62;
holds court at Talmont, 60;
attachment to Berengaria of Navarre, 62;
returns to Aquitaine and attacks Geoffrey, 63;
surrenders Poitou to Eleanor, _ib._;
betrothed to the emperor’s daughter, 64;
to Berengaria, _ib._;
to Aloysia again, 65;
again sent to Aquitaine, _ib._;
invades Toulouse and conquers Quercy, 66;
negotiations with Philip at Châteauroux, 68, 69;
visits Philip at Paris, 70;
does homage again to Henry, 71;
takes the Cross, _ib._;
with Henry at Le Mans, 72;
dispute with his father about the Crusade, 73;
quells revolt in Aquitaine, 74;
quarrels with Raymond of Toulouse, 75, 77;
makes attempt on Châteauroux, 78;
takes Les Roches, _ib._;
attacks Mantes, 79;
captures William des Barres, _ib._;
quarrel with Philip at Châtillon, 80;
betrothal to Aloysia renewed, 82;
in pursuit of Henry from Le Mans, 88;
encounter with William the Marshal, _ib._;
besieges Tours with Philip, 89;
last meeting with Henry, 90;
at Henry’s funeral, 91, 92;
sends the Marshal to England, 92;
confirms Henry’s grants, _ib._, 93;
first acts as king, _ib._;
relations with John, 93-94;
invested as duke of Normandy, 94;
meets Philip, _ib._;
treaty with him, _ib._, 95;
returns to England, 95;
received at Winchester, _ib._;
first proclamation, _ib._, 96;
welcomed in London, 96;
crowned, 97;
tries to protect Jews, 98;
his financial difficulties, _ib._, 99;
preparations for Crusade, 99-105;
holds council at Pipewell, 106;
dealings with Wales, _ib._;
agrees to meet Philip at Vézelay, _ib._;
goes to S. Edmund’s, 107;
to Canterbury, _ib._;
dealings with Scotland, 109-111;
goes to Normandy, 111;
meets Philip, _ib._;
goes to Aquitaine, 112;
appoints justiciar, 112-113;
fleet, 113-115;
founds abbey at Talmont, 115-116;
at Gourfaille, 116;
takes Chis, _ib._;
receives scrip and staff at Tours, 117;
meets Philip at Vézelay, 117, 118;
crosses the Rhône, 119, 120;
goes to Marseille, 120;
to Genoa, 121;
coasting voyage to Naples, 121-122;
adventure at Mileto, 123;
crosses the “Far,” _ib._;
enters Messina, 124;
seizes the “Griffons’ Minster,” 126;
captures Messina, 127-128;
dispute with Philip, 129, 130;
negotiations with Tancred, 130-133;
builds “Mategriffon,” 131;
penance, 134;
quarrel with William des Barres, 135, 138;
relations with Tancred, 137;
engagement to Aloysia finally broken off, _ib._;
treaty with Philip, 137-138;
meets Eleanor and Berengaria at Reggio, 138;
sails from Messina, 140;
voyage to Rhodes, 140-141;
reaches Limasol, 142-143;
dealings with Isaac Comnenos, 143;
takes Limasol, 143-145;
marriage, 145;
meeting with Isaac, 146;
takes Nicosia, 147;
receives Isaac’s surrender, 147-148;
sails for Palestine, 149;
encounter with a Turkish ship, 149-150;
refused admittance to Tyre, 151;
at Acre, 155-157;
disputes with Philip, 161, 165, 167;
quarrel with duke of Austria, 166, 330-331;
leads the host towards Ascalon, 177-178;
advance to Haïfa, 179;
reconciled with William des Barres, _ib._;
advance to Caesarea, 180-181;
to the “Dead River,” 182;
wounded, 183;
parley with Safadin, 184;
victory at Arsuf, 185-188;
goes to Joppa, 189;
negotiations with Safadin, 191;
restores Joppa, 191-192;
his letters on the Crusade, 193, 194;
goes to Acre, 195;
saved from capture by William des Préaux, 195;
returns to Joppa, 196;
negotiations with Safadin, _ib._;
with Saladin, _ib._, 197, 199, 200;
advances to Casal of the Plains, 198;
conference with Safadin, 199;
encampment between Ramlah and Lydda, 201;
goes to Natroun, 203;
advance to Beit Nuba, 204-205;
returns to Ramlah, 206-207;
goes to Ibelin, 207-208;
to Ascalon, 208;
to Darum, 209;
releases Christian prisoners, 210;
negotiates with Conrad, _ib._;
quarrel with Burgundy, 211;
goes to Acre, _ib._;
meets Conrad, 212;
reconciled to Burgundy, _ib._;
reopens negotiations with Saladin, 212-213;
difficulties with the French, 213;
holds court at Ascalon, 214;
goes again to Darum, 215;
plans for returning to England, _ib._;
charged with Conrad’s death, 217;
opinion on marriage of Isabel and Henry, 219;
excursions round Ascalon, 220;
takes Blanchegarde, _ib._, 221;
adventure at Furbia, 221;
takes Darum, 222-224;
goes to the Canebrake of Starlings, 225;
goes towards Ibelin, 226, 227;
his perplexities, _ib._;
returns to Ascalon, 229;
decides to advance on Jerusalem, _ib._;
goes again to Blanchegarde, 231;
to Natroun, Castle Arnold, and Beit Nuba, 232;
excursions, etc., from Beit Nuba, 233;
capture of caravan from Egypt, 235-238;
quarrel with Burgundy, 241;
receives relics of the Cross, 242-243;
story of his refusal to look at Jerusalem, 243, 244;
returns to Ramlah, 244;
reopens negotiations, 245;
goes to Joppa and Acre, _ib._;
plans attack on Beyrout, 246;
recovers Joppa from Saladin, 248-250;
negotiates with Saladin through Abou Bekr, 251-257;
second recovery of Joppa, 253-255;
negotiations through Bedr-ed-Din, 257, 258;
final agreement with Saladin, 259-260;
refuses to visit Jerusalem, 260-261;
goes back to Haïfa, 261;
ransoms William des Préaux, _ib._;
gives Cyprus to Guy, _ib._;
sails for Europe, 262;
Moslems’ impression of him, _ib._;
homeward voyage, 264-268;
adventures in Italy, etc., 268-269;
captured in Austria, 270;
transferred to the emperor, 273;
negotiations for his release, 274-276;
confined at Triffels, 274;
behaviour in captivity, 277;
song written in prison, 278;
writes to England about ransom, 279-280;
imprisoned at Worms, 281;
reconciles Henry with the German magnates, _ib._;
agreement with Henry, _ib._, 282;
negotiates with Philip, 282-283;
terms of his release, 284;
homage to the emperor, _ib._, 336-338;
journey home, 285-286;
goes to Canterbury, 287;
to London, _ib._;
to S. Edmund’s, _ib._;
Nottingham surrendered to him, 288;
holds a council at Nottingham, 289;
meets William of Scotland at Southwell, _ib._;
agreement with him, 290, 292;
“second coronation,” or crown-wearing, 290-291;
goes to Normandy, 292-293;
pardons John, 294;
recovers Verneuil, Loches, etc., 294-295;
victory at Fréteval, 296-297;
recovers control of Aquitaine, 297-298;
withdraws the Seal from William of Ely, 298;
truce with France, _ib._, 299;
financial measures, 299;
does penance, 300;
attempt to assassinate him, 301;
meets Philip, 302, 304;
relations with Henry VI, 303;
treaty with Philip, 305;
sends to England for troops, _ib._;
conquers Britanny, 306;
builds castle at Porte-Joie, _ib._;
wounded at Gaillon, 307;
his demands refused in England, 307-308;
dispute with Archbishop Walter about Andely, 309-311;
continental alliances, 313;
grants Poitou to Otto of Saxony, 314;
agreement with count of Toulouse, _ib._;
raids Ponthieu, _ib._;
successes in Auvergne, 315;
conference with Philip at “the Isle,” 315, 316;
truce with Philip, 316;
his boast about Château-Gaillard, _ib._;
agreement with Walter, 316-317;
invited to election of emperor, 317;
sends representatives, 318;
nominated for election, _ib._;
his allies, 319;
encounter with Philip at Gisors, 320;
his want of money, 321;
change of seal, _ib._;
builds Boutavant, 322;
negotiates with Philip, _ib._;
meets him again, 323;
makes truce for five years, _ib._;
makes treaty of peace, _ib._, 324;
claims treasure-trove at Châlus, 325;
besieges Châlus, _ib._;
wounded, 326;
sends for his mother, 327;
testamentary arrangements, 327-328;
interview with his slayer, 328;
death and burial, 329

Rochelle, La, Richard’s dealings with, 16

Roches, Les, taken by Richard, 78

Rouen, Walter, archbishop of, 133, 136, 305, 309, 311

“Round Cistern,” the, 236-237

Routiers, 51, 53, 60, 61;
_see_ Brabantines

Safadin, 157, 184, 191, 196-197, 199, 256

St. Edmund’s, Richard at, 107

St. Elias, monastery of, 242

St. Maigrin, Richard defeats Brabantines at, 20

St. Pierre de Cize, Richard at, 21

Saint-Pol, count of, 203

Saintes seized by Richard, 16;
retaken by Henry, _ib._

Saladin, extent of his dominions, 152-154;
relations with Richard, 157;
attitude on surrender of Acre, 163-171;
defeat at Arsuf, 185-188;
goes to Ramlah, 189;
razes Ascalon, 190;
razes citadel of Ramlah, 193;
negotiations with Conrad, 194-195;
goes to Natroun, 195;
at Ramlah again, 198;
negotiations with Richard and Conrad, 199, 200;
at Natroun, 201;
retires to Jerusalem, _ib._;
receives reinforcements, 230;
prepares for siege of Jerusalem, 238-240;
his difficulties, 244;
renews negotiations, 245;
takes Joppa, 247-248;
loses it, 250;
regains it, 252;
again driven out, 253-255;
final agreement with Richard, 259, 260

Saladin tithe, 72

Salisbury, Herbert, bishop of, 308

Salisbury, Hubert Walter, bishop of, _see_ Hubert

Salisbury, Patrick, earl of, 8, 9

Sancho VI, king of Navarre, 11, 12 note 1, 136

Sancho VII, king of Navarre, 295, 297-298

Sancho of Sérannes, 53, 60

Saxony, Henry the Lion, duke of, 265, 273, 282

Saxony, Henry the younger of, 318-319

Saxony, Matilda, duchess of, 47

Saxony, Otto of, 318-319, 324

Scotland, Henry II’s dealings with, 107-108;
Richard’s, 109-111;
kings of, _see_ Malcolm, William

Seal, the Great, 298;
Richard’s change of, 338-339

Seilhac, Robert of, 8

Seilun, Peter, 75

Sibyl, queen of Jerusalem, 158, 159

Sicily, Constance of, _see_ Constance

Sicily, Joan, queen of, _see_ Joan

Sicily, kings of, _see_ Tancred, William

Sidon, Reginald of, 199

Spain invaded by Moors, 302

Stephen, seneschal of Anjou, 93

Suabia, Philip of, 319

Taillebourg, siege of, 29-31

Talmont, 60, 115-116

Tancred, king of Sicily, 124, 130-133, 137

Tell-Ayadiyeh, 163

Thouars, viscount of, 7

Toron, Humphrey of, 159, 184, 213

Torpenay, Luke, abbot of, 329

Toulouse, county of, invaded by Richard, 66

Toulouse, Raymond V, count of, 6, 7, 11, 12, 55, 66, 75-77

Toulouse, Raymond VI, count of, 314

Tournaments, licensed by Richard, 299

Tours taken by Philip and Richard, 89;
Richard receives scrip and staff at, 117

Trenchemer, Alan, 280

Trou burnt by Philip Augustus, 78

Turnham, Robert of, 148, 280

Turnham, Stephen of, 93, 142

Tyre, 151-153, 159

Valeria, Saint, 11

Vaudreuil, 294, 302

Vendôme, Burchard, count of, 78

Verneuil besieged by Philip, 294;
meeting of kings at, 303

Vexin, the, disputes about, 23;
the Norman, ceded to France, 305

Vézelay, Richard and Philip at, 118

Vienna, Richard captured near, 270

Vigeois, Geoffrey of, 37

Wales, scutage of, 106

Wales, South, Rees, prince of, 106

William the Lion, king of Scots, relations with Henry II, 108;
with Richard, 109-111, 289-290, 292

William, king of Sicily, 121, 124

Worms, agreement of Henry VI and Richard at, 281-282

York, Geoffrey, archbishop of, 103, 107, 113

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] R. Diceto, ii. 67, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe), iii. 3. Both the prophet and his commentator ignore the fact that what they call Eleanor’s “third nesting” was really her sixth, as she had already had, besides her two elder sons, two daughters by her first marriage and one by her second.

[2] Rog. Howden, iii. 215.

[3] _Chron. Anon._ in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._ xii. 121. She had joined him before the end of August; _Chron. de Bello_, 76.

[4] R. Torigni, a. 1157; Pipe Roll 3 Hen. II, 107.

[5] R. Torigni, a. 1157.

[6] W. Newburgh, lib. ii. c. 4.

[7] Place from R. Diceto, i. 302; day from _Chron. S. Albini Andeg._, a. 1157.

[8] “MS. in Lord Arundel’s collection,” as quoted by James, Collections, vii. 34 (Bodl.); Stubbs, preface to R. Howden, iii., xviii. note 2.

[9] In 1220 Henry III granted to another person “septem libratas redditûs in Chippenham quas Hodierna nutrix domini Regis Ricardi avunculi nostri habuit,” _Close Rolls_, ii. 416 b. That the grant to Hodierna was made by Richard may be inferred from there being no trace of the payment in the Pipe Rolls of his father’s reign. Stubbs notes that “this could not have been the whole of her property, for her land in 30 Hen. III” [1246-7], “was talliaged at 40_s._”; also that “the parish of Knoyle Hodierne in Wiltshire still preserves her name.” Pref. to R. Howd. iii., xviii. note 2.

[10] R. Diceto, i. 293.

[11] See especially _Chron. S. Maxent._, a. 1060 and 1110, and _Hist. Pont. et Com. Engolism._, Labbe, _Thesaurus_, ii. 268 (a. 1070-1101).

[12] Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, _Thes._, ii. 304. This was in 1136-7. M. Richard (_Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 51) thinks Emma was only betrothed, not married, to the duke. His arguments are not strong enough to convince me against the distinct statement of Geoffrey of Vigeois.

[13] “Lemovicæ comes” (_sic_) “habet feudum de abbate S. Martialis castellum de Petra Buffiera et turrim de castello quod est super Charnix, Lemovicense castrum, vicariam de turre, Bernardii castellum de Cambono S. Valeriæ. Pro his omnibus debent hominium facere abbatibus cunctis omnes vicecomites qui feudum istud tenuerunt”—Geoffrey, the writer, had twice seen it performed—“... Abbas tamen dominium totius castri Lemovicini habere debet, vicecomes vicariam tantum.... Burgenses vero argenti pondere fulti vicecomiti vix obtemperant, quando minus monachis” Geoff. Vigeois, 333. For the significance of “castrum Lemovicense,” see the next footnote.

[14] “Lite mota inter cives et hospites, Dux irritatus est; tunc muros castri, qui non multo tempore fuerunt constructi, funditus evertit, pontemque disrupit.... Procurationem noluit Albertus Abbas in urbem facere Duci, dicens non debere extra septa reddere castri.” Geoff. Vigeois, 308. Limoges in those days, and long after, was a sort of double town of which one part, comprising the cathedral church and its precincts and seemingly called the “city,” belonged to the bishop, and the other part to the abbot of S. Martial’s, under homage to whom it was governed by the viscount. Each part had its own enclosure. There was no castle in the ordinary sense of that word; but the abbot’s part, which was the more populous and important part of the town, seems to have taken the title of _castrum_. The case was somewhat like that of the city of Tours and the _Castrum S. Martini_, or Châteauneuf.

[15] Geoff. Vigeois, 308-10.

[16] R. Torigni, a. 1159.

[17] Treaty in Lyttelton, _Henry II_, iv. 174.

[18] “Ad corredium Ricardi filii Regis £10 6_s._ 8_d._ per breve Regis,” Pipe Roll 9 Hen. II (1162-3) 71. Cf. an entry, _ib._, 72; “in porcis et ovis et minutis rebus contra festum filii Regis 100_s._” Henry was in London that year in the first week of March (Eyton, _Itin._ Hen. II, 59), and again on October 1 (_Mater. for Hist. Becket_, iv. 201). It is possible that the royal family may have been there also in September, and that the “festum filii Regis” may have been Richard’s birthday; but it is perhaps more likely to have been that of young Henry, February 28.

[19] R. Torigni, a. 1165.

[20] Gerv. Cant., i. 205.

[21] _Mater. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. ccliii., vi. 74.

[22] R. Torigni, a. 1167. Cf. _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. cclxxvii., vi. 131.

[23] R. Torigni, _l.c._ Cf. _Chronn. S. Albini_ and _S. Sergii_, a. 1166.

[24] R. Torigni, _l.c._

[25] Geoff. Vigeois, 318; R. Torigni, a. 1168; _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456.

[26] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, _l.c._

[27] “Robertus de Silli,” _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456; “Robertus de Selit,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318; “Robertus et frater ejus de Silleio,” R. Torigni, a. 1167. The name appears as “de Silliaco” in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vii. 165, 178, 247, 606, 610, 616. It cannot be Sillé in Maine as I suggested in _Angevin Kings_, ii. 137; it can hardly be anything else than Seilhac.

[28] R. Torigni, _l.c._, names “Haimericus de Lizennoio”; the writer of Ep. 434 in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456, names “Gaufridus de Lezinniaco” and “Haimericus de Rancone.” There seems to be no other trace of an Aimeric de Rancogne, if indeed Rancogne be the place intended here and not Rancon in La Marche, as to the ownership of which I can discover nothing. There was an Aimeric de Lusignan, and also a Geoffrey de Lusignan, and there was furthermore a Geoffrey de Rancogne of whom we shall hear again. To me it seems most probable that the Lusignan here referred to was Aimeric, and that his Christian name has (owing to a confusion between him and his brother) been transposed with that of the lord of Rancogne.

[29] R. Torigni, a. 1168.

[30] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456.

[31] R. Torigni, a. 1168.

[32] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 409.

[33] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 409.

[34] R. Torigni, a. 1168.

[35] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 1615-52. According to R. Torigni, _l.c._, Patrick was killed “circa octavas Paschae,” _i. e._ April 7, the very day of the conference.

[36] “Rex Henricus senior filio Richardo ex voluntate matris Aquitanorum tradidit Ducatum.” Geoff. Vigeois, 318.

[37] Cf. John of Salisbury’s letter in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 506-7, R. Torigni, a. 1169, and Gerv. Cant., i. 208.

[38] R. Torigni, a. 1169.

[39] Geoff. Vigeois, 318. Bernard Itier, ed. Duplès-Agier, 58.

[40] “Novusque dux ab omnibus proclamatur,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318-19. Geoffrey does not give the year explicitly, but he does so implicitly by saying that Raymond of Toulouse did homage to Richard “anno sequenti.” S. Valeria’s body was at S. Martial’s abbey at Limoges; _ib._, 285. According to Geoffrey and the Chronicle of S. Martial’s (ed. Duplès-Agier), 209, she was the protomartyr not only of Aquitaine but of Gaul.

[41] _Gesta Hen._, i. 35-6. The presence of Eleanor and the date of the homage—“Dominica qua cantatur Invocavit Me,” _i. e._ February 25—are mentioned only by Geoff. Vigeois, 319, who adds: “Feria quarta, alias sexta, heroes qui per dies septem concilium celebravere Lemovica discedunt ab urbe”; _i. e._ the kings and counts were at Limoges either from Thursday, February 22, to Wednesday, 28, or from Saturday, February 24, to Friday, March 2. This assembly of a week’s duration at Limoges is clearly to be identified with the one described by the local chronicler, Bernard Itier, in a very corrupt passage which his latest editor, M. Duplès-Agier, has printed (p. 58) from the much mutilated MS. with conjectural emendations, thus: “Anno gracie MCLXXII ... [Alienor Regina] et filio Ricardo et com ... [et regibus de] Arragonia et de Navarra [venerunt] ... Lemovicas et per viii dies in ca[stro Lemovicensi moram] fecerunt.” February 1173 in our reckoning would be February 1172 in Bernard’s reckoning, as in the kingdom of France the year began at Easter. I think that for “Alienor Regina” we should substitute “Rex cum Regina,” and supply “[ite Tolosæ]” after “com.” What the king of Navarre—Sancho VI, father of Berengaria whom Richard ultimately married—had come for, there is nothing to show. Count Gerard of Vienne, whom R. Diceto (i. 353) adds to the list of those present, was a Provençal subfeudatary of Raymond of Toulouse, and so may have been concerned in Raymond’s dispute with Alfonso. The statement of R. Diceto (i. 353-4) that “quia Ricardus Dux Aquitaniæ, cui facturus esset homagium comes Sancti Ægidii, presens non erat, usque ad octavas Pentecostes negotii complementum dilationem accepit,” is clearly erroneous.

[42] _Gesta Hen._, i. 41-2. R. Diceto, i. 355.

[43] Geoff. Vigeois, 319.

[44] _Gesta Hen._, i. 42.

[45] _Ib._, 44.

[46] W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 27.

[47] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.

[48] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.

[49] _Gesta_, i. 49; but R. Torigni, a. 1173, mentions only young Henry and the counts of Flanders and Boulogne.

[50] Cf. _Gesta_, _l.c._; R. Diceto, i. 373, etc.

[51] R. Howden, ii. 52.

[52] _Gesta_, i. 59. Cf. R. Howden, ii. 53.

[53] _Gesta_, i. 63.

[54] _Ib._, 46-7.

[55] Geoff. Vigeois, 320-3.

[56] Richard, _Ctes. de Poitou_, ii. 173, from _Archives historiques de la Gironde_, i. 388.

[57] Richard the Poitevin, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xii. 420, 421, a passage which M. Richard, _Ctes._, ii. 174, note 2, says relates to 1173-4, not 1186-8 as formerly supposed.

[58] R. Diceto, i. 380. Cf. _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1174.

[59] _Gesta_, 71.

[60] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, lib. iii. dist. 8 (Anglia Christiana Soc. edition, 106).

[61] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 76, and R. Howd., ii. 66.

[62] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[63] R. Howd., ii. 67.

[64] _Gesta_, i. 77-9.

[65] See _Angevin Kings_, ii. 165, note 7.

[66] R. Diceto, i. 398.

[67] _Ib._ and R. Howd., ii. 71.

[68] _Gesta_, i. 78.

[69] See this clause in the treaty, _ib._, 77.

[70] _Ib._, 82-4.

[71] _Gesta_, i. 101. The place is there called “Castellum super Agiens.” M. Richard, _Ctes. de Poitou_, ii. 183, calls it “le château du Puy de Castillon”; cf. _ib._, 134, “Castillon sur Agen, place extrêmement forte,” from R. Torigni, a. 1161, “Castellionem super urbem Agennum, castrum scilicet natura et artificio munitum,” taken by Henry after a week’s siege in 1161. It seems to be identical with Grand-Castel, on the river, a little above Agen.

[72] _Gesta_, i. 114.

[73] _Ib._, 115.

[74] “In liberatione esnecce quando rex junior transfretavit £7 10_s._ per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que transfretaverunt cum eo ... £7 15_s._ per breve regis. Et item in passagio esnecce quando Ricardus filius regis transfretavit vii_l._ and x_s._ per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que transfretaverunt cum eo vi_l._ per breve regis.”—Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II (1175-6), 199.

[75] R. Diceto, i. 407.

[76] _Gesta_, i. 121. I am uncertain whether “Montigernac” is meant for Montignac, or Jarnac, or for both; very likely the latter, as the two places are close together, and the writer not being familiar with the country may easily have run two names into one.

[77] Cf. _Gesta_, 120, 121, with R. Diceto, i. 414.

[78] _Gesta_, i. 131-2. The writer’s chronology is obviously confused, but the closing date of the series may be correct.

[79] R. Torigni, a. 1177.

[80] _Gesta_, i. 127.

[81] _Ib._, 195-6.

[82] _Ib._, 131, 132.

[83] _Ib._, 132.

[84] _Ib._, 168.

[85] Alex. III Ep. in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xv. 954, 955. Cf. _Gesta_, i. 180, 181.

[86] _Gesta_, i. 168.

[87] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 180-1 with the Pope’s letter, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xv. 954-5.

[88] _Gesta_, i. 181, 182.

[89] _Ib._, 190, 191; place from R. Diceto, i. 422.

[90] R. Howden, ii. 143.

[91] _Gesta_, i. 191-2; place and date from R. Diceto, i. 422.

[92] _Gesta_, i. 195.

[93] R. Torigni, a. 1177.

[94] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 195-7, R. Diceto, i. 425, and R. Torigni, a. 1177.

[95] _Gesta_, i. 196.

[96] R. Torigni, a. 1177.

[97] I infer this from the fact that neither she nor her husband, Guy of Comborn, seem ever to have put forth any claim to the county. Geoff. Vigeois, 324, speaks as if she were still living at the time of its sale. She may have died soon after, and as she was childless (_ib._, and Chron. MS. printed in Duplès-Agier, _Chron. de Limoges_, 188), whatever rights she might have claimed would die with her.

[98] _Gesta_, i. 197; R. Howden, ii. 147-8; and cf. Geoff. Vigeois, 324, and _Chron. S. Mart. Limoges_, 188, which gives the date October 7, but Adalbert’s own charter (_Gesta_ and R. Howd., _ll.cc._) says “mense Decembri.” G. Vigeois gives the sum paid as 5000 marks; the _Chron. S. Mart._, 189, R. Torigni a. 1177, and R. Diceto, i. 425, make it 6000 marks of silver, and R. Torigni adds “terram ... valentem, ut idem rex dixit, viginti millia marcas argenti.” The _Gesta_ and R. Howden both insert a copy of Adalbert’s charter, but the writer of the former must have copied the figures wrongly, for he makes the sum only fifteen pounds Angevin; in Roger’s version it is 15,000 pounds Angevin. Both versions add twenty mules and twenty palfreys.

[99] R. Torigni, a. 1177.

[100] He was with his father and brothers at Angers at Christmas, 1177; R. Torigni, _ad ann._

[101] “Cum magno exercitu _in Pictaviam_ profectus,” says our authority, _Gesta_, i. 212; but clearly he must mean either “in Gasconiam” or “ex Pictavia.”

[102] _Gesta_, i. 212, 213.

[103] _Ib._, 212.

[104] R. Diceto, i. 431, 432. The _Gesta_, i. 212, say the siege began on May 3 and lasted only three days.

[105] _Gesta_, _l.c._; cf. R. Torigni, a. 1179, who evidently did not know that Pons belonged to Geoffrey.

[106] R. Diceto, i. 432; _Gesta_, i. 213.

[107] R. Torigni, a. 1179.

[108] R. Diceto, i. 432.

[109] “Ricardo comiti Pictaviae l.m.,” Pipe Roll 25 Hen. II (1178-9), 101. “In passagio esneccae quando Ricardus comes Pictaviae transfretavit,” _ib._, p. 107.

[110] _Itin. Ric._, 144.

[111] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.

[112] _Itin._, _l.c._

[113] “Species digna imperio,” _ib._; “formae dignae imperio,” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, _l.c._

[114] _Itin._, _l.c._

[115] “Hic leo noster plusquam leo.” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.

[116] _Ib._

[117] An obvious instance is Richard’s great-grandfather, King Henry I, who was called “the Lion of Justice.” Two of Richard’s own contemporaries are known as Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and William the Lion, king of Scots; though in this last case the appellation was probably derived merely from the cognizance on his shield.

[118] Cf., _e. g._, _Coronement Loois_, l. 1807—“C’est Fierebrace qui cuer a de lion.”

[119] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” _Estoire de la Croisade_, l. 2310.

[120] Bertrand de Born in his sirventes often speaks of Richard by a nickname—“Oc e No,” “Yea and Nay.” Its use seems to be peculiar to Bertrand. Some modern writers have taken it as intended to imply that Richard was light of purpose, or of a wavering disposition. As Clédat points out (Bertran de Born, 101-2), such an explanation would be quite out of harmony not only with Richard’s real character as displayed in his actions from the very outset of his rule in Aquitaine, but also with every other indication of Bertran’s opinion of him. We might almost more reasonably conjecture that although when Richard did swear he used some very extraordinary oaths (“Per gorgiam Dei,” Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._ dist. iii. c. 25, on which Gerald comments “quoniam his et similibus sacramentibus uti solet”; “Par les gambes Dieu,” _Hist. G. le Mar._ ll. 8839, 9367), his usual practice was to “swear not at all,” but so to act that a simple statement from him of his will and purpose, “yea” or “nay,” was recognized as being no less positive and final than if he had confirmed it with an oath.

[121] Cf. the character given by a Flemish chronicler, “Richard ... ke otre toz les boins estoit preus e vaillans.” _Hist. des Ducs_, 84.

[122] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8.

[123] _Ib._

[124] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8. Cf. Bertrand de Born, “Ar ve la coindeta sazos,” ll. 33-5:

Bom sap l’usatge qu’a’l leos Qu’a re venenda non es maus, Mas contra orgolh es orgolhos.—

where the context shows that the “lion” stands for Richard.

[125] Gir. Cambr. _De Instr. Princ._, _l.c._

[126] _Ib._; Gerv. Cant. i. 303; and cf. R. Diceto, ii. 19—“Pictaviensibus ... quos Ricardus indebitis vexationibus et violenta dominatione premebat.”

[127] His brutal treatment of his Breton and “Basque” prisoners in 1183 is a wholly different matter. Those prisoners were not his own subjects; they were foreign invaders; the charge of cruelty mentioned above had no reference to them. Moreover, even their fate does not necessarily indicate that Richard was of a specially cruel disposition, for that fate does not appear to have outraged the public opinion of their day, at any rate in Aquitaine.

[128] _Gesta_, i. 292.

[129] Geoff. Vigeois, 317. It is a pity that Geoffrey’s rime, “Richardus, qui ad probitatis opera nunquam exstitit tardus,” cannot be reproduced in an English translation; and also that “prowess” in its modern use conveys such an imperfect idea of the medieval _probitas_. The rime may be unintentional; but it is far more likely to be derived from some vernacular couplet current at the time “... En Richartz, Qu’ad obras de proesa ja n’estet tartz,” or something similar.

[130] R. Torigni, a. 1179. See the various names applied to these “malignants,” “whose teeth and arms had nearly devoured Aquitaine,” in Geoff. Vigeois, 328, 334.

[131] _Ib._, 325; for date see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.

[132] See B. de Born’s _sirventes_, “Ges no me desconort,” ll. 22-3, where he speaks of “the three counts of Angoulême”—“li trei comte fat Engolmesi.”

[133] Geoff. Vigeois, 326.

[134] In p. 327 Geoffrey says in reference to a period which from the context seems to be about the end of January 1181: “Tunc genus inimicitiarum Richardi et Alienoris in speciem amicitiae vertitur.” As there is no indication elsewhere of “unfriendliness” between Richard and his mother, nor of anything which might have given rise to it, nor of anything likely to produce a change in their feelings towards each other at this time; and as, moreover, their intercommunications must for the past seven years have been extremely limited if not altogether non-existent, seeing that Eleanor had been throughout that time in confinement in England, I cannot but suspect that this passage is corrupt. Possibly “Alienoris” may be a transcriber’s mistake for “Ademari,” and the person really meant may be Aimar of Limoges.

[135] Geoff. Vigeois, 327.

[136] R. Diceto, ii. 9; cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 297.

[137] Geoff. Vigeois, 326; for the year see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.

[138] “Qui” (_i. e._ the Duke) “cum puella terram obtinere tentavit,” says G. Vigeois, 326. A statement made by some modern writers that Richard wanted to marry the girl and thus annex her county seems to be without authority.

[139] G. Vigeois, 326.

[140] Gerv. Cant. i. 303.

[141] Hautefort was in the diocese of Périgord, but in the viscounty of Limoges; cf. the two biographies of Bertrand de Born, Thomas, _B. de Born_, li., Stimming (ed. 1892), 51; the “contradiction” which Stimming (3) finds on this point exists only in his own imagination, and he is mistaken in branding as “false” the second biographer’s statement that Bertrand “fu de Lemozi,” for Bertrand himself speaks of “Nos Lemozi” in his sirventes “Eu chant,” l. 44, Thomas, 21, Stimming, 69.

[142] _Razo_ of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7; Stimming, 6-7.

[143] Provençal biography of B. de Born, No. I, Thomas, li.

[144] _Sirventes_, “Lo coms m’a mandat,” ll. 45, 46, Thomas, 6.

[145] See “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” ll. 9-14.

[146] Another Aimar, William, and Elias. It was the two former who tried to get possession of Angoulême in succession to their eldest brother Vulgrin (G. Vigeois, 326). Elias was still living in January-February 1183, when “Helias et Sector Ferri” are coupled together by G. Vigeois (332) as “Vulgrini defuncti comites Engolismensis fratres.” It is doubtful whether “Sector Ferri”—Taillefer, a surname used by all the counts of Angoulême at this period—here represents William or Aimar. Some modern writers date William’s death in 1181. He was at any rate still alive in June of that year; G. Vigeois (326) says definitely “_Guillermus_ et Ademarus defuncto inhiabant succedere fratri,” _i. e._ to succeed Vulgrin who died in June 1181, see Clédat, _B. de Born_, 42, note.

[147] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 35-8.

[148] “Tals me plevi sa fe No feses plait sens me,” _ib._ ll. 39-40. Obviously this “pledging of faith” could not apply to Bertrand alone. Nor was he the only one towards whom it was broken, as we shall see.

[149] Cf. “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 1-3, with “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 18-25.

[150] _Razo_ of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7. Bertrand himself mentions some of these lesser barons in “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 2, 9, 10.

[151] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 17-30.

[152] _Gesta_, i. 197.

[153] G. Vigeois, 324.

[154] He was there in February or March 1181, and again in May and on June 24, 1182; _ib._ 326, 330.

[155] “Pois Ventadorn,” l. 4.

[156] G. Vigeois, 330, 331.

[157] _Ib._, 320.

[158] “Quod protinus adimpletur,” says G. Vigeois, 326.

[159] See the last six lines of “Pois Ventadorn,” with the note of M. Thomas, _B. de Born_, 15. I venture to think M. Thomas is mistaken in assuming that “Talhafer” represents either Elias or William. We know from John’s treaty with Philip in 1193 that at some time or other Aimar had done homage to Philip (“Comes Engolismensis tenebit terram suam a Rege Franciae, illam scilicet de qua fecit se hominem [illius?]; a me,” _i. e._ John, “vero tenebit aliam terram quam a me debet tenere,” _Fœdera_ I. i. 57); there is nothing to show that he was the youngest of the family; it seems more likely that he was the next to Vulgrin in age, and therefore, if Maud’s claim was to be ruled out, next to Vulgrin also in the line of succession.

[160] G. Vigeois, 331.

[161] The district in which Clairvaux stood—the Loudunais—had originally belonged to Poitou; it was annexed to Anjou towards the end of the tenth century by Geoffrey Greygown, who held it under homage to the Poitevin Count William III. This homage became obsolete after Geoffrey Martel’s victory over William VIII in 1033. Richard may possibly have had some idea of reviving the Poitevin claim to the overlordship of the Loudunais; but it is more likely that he simply did not know, and did not care to ascertain, exactly where the frontier line ran.

[162] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 33-40.

[163] _Gesta_, i. 294; R. Diceto, ii. 18, where young Henry is made to say that Richard fortified Clairvaux “contra suam” (_i. e._ young Henry’s) “voluntatem.”

[164] G. Vigeois, 332; Bern. Itier, a. 1182.

[165] G. Vigeois, 332—“Olivarus frater Petri vicecomitis de Castellone,” _i. e._ Castillon in Périgord. A month earlier Aimar of Limoges had taken and destroyed the “Burgum S. Germani”; _ib._ Probably this means S. Germain-les-Belles, near Limoges, and Aimar was merely chastising a vassal of his own; at any rate there is nothing to imply that the matter concerned Richard in any way.

[166] Cf. “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28, and “Chazutz sui,” ll. 29-31.

[167] “Chazutz sui,” ll. 25-36.

[168] “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28.

[169] See “No posc mudar,” ll. 13-16, and Thomas, Introd. xv. I venture, however, to think that “Rancon” probably stands not for the place now so called, in Haute-Vienne (Thomas, 77, note 4), _i. e._ in the Limousin, but for Rancogne in the Angoumois, the home of the well-known Geoffrey, lord also of Pons and of Taillebourg.

[170] See “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 11-14, with the reference to “quem disses [el coms, _i. e._ Richard] antan.”

[171] _Gesta_, i. 291.

[172] _Ib._, 294, 295.

[173] _Ib._, 295.

[174] _Gesta_, i. 295.

[175] R. Diceto, ii. 18—“homagium et ligantiam.” Cf. _Gesta_, i. 291-2.

[176] R. Diceto, _l.c._

[177] _I. e._, probably, to an explanation that the homage was not meant to take effect till young Henry should be in his father’s place.

[178] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[179] _Ib._, 295.

[180] “Vehementer excanduit, incongruum esse dicens, ut dicitur, cum eodem ex patre, cum eadem ex matre, traxisset originem, si fratrem primogenitum aliqua specie subjectionis superiorem agnosceret; sed sicut ipsi fratri suo regi lege primogenitorum bona debebantur paterna, sic in bonis maternis aequa lance successionem legitimam vindicabat,” R. Diceto, ii. 18, 19. That is to say, in fact, he claimed to hold Aquitaine, _after his father’s death_, as a direct underfief of the kingdom of France, and not as a part of the Angevin dominions at all. In other words, he claimed the right to break up the Angevin empire; which was precisely what Henry II was trying to prevent.

[181] _Gesta_, i. 292.

[182] R. Diceto, ii. 19.

[183] Cf. _Gesta_, i. 292 and 295.

[184] “Transacta Purificatione B. Mariae,” G. Vigeois, 332. Geoffrey dates the quarrel between the king’s sons “tertio idus Decembris, celebrata Domini Nativitate.” Can he mean “tertio idus Januarii,” January 11? This might very well be the date of the final quarrel between young Henry and Richard.

[185] _Gesta_, i. 296.

[186] G. Vigeois, _l.c._; _Gesta_, i. 292, 293.

[187] _Gesta_, i. 293. It is hardly possible that Geoffrey can have had time to go in person into Britanny as the _Gesta_ imply; but it is clear from Bertrand de Born’s poem “D’un sirventes nom chal” that he was deep in the Aquitanian plot before his eldest brother’s adhesion to it was known; no doubt, therefore, he had secretly made his preparations beforehand for the crisis which had now come.

[188] G. Vigeois, 332.

[189] G. Vigeois, 332.

[190] _Gesta_, i. 292. G. Vigeois, _l.c._, mentions among the “barones et principes” who “tunc temporis conspiraverunt adversus Ricardum,” besides young Henry and Geoffrey of Britanny, Elias, and “Taillefer” of Angoulême, Aimar of Limoges, Raymond of Turenne, Peter viscount of Castillon and his brother Oliver of Chalais, Fulcaud of Archiac (in Saintonge) and Geoffrey of Lusignan. This last was now at Limoges, and in the most intimate counsels of the young king; see _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 6408-13.

[191] R. Howden, ii. 274.

[192] G. Vigeois, _l.c._

[193] Saint Pierre du Queiroix, “de Quadrivio,” situated near the north-east angle of the old town or Castrum S. Martialis; _ib._

[194] “Santius de Sarannas et Curbanus seu Curbaranus,” G. Vigeois, 333; in all other places where Geoffrey mentions the latter he uses the longer form of the name. “Curbaran” is the name of a Saracen prince in the _Chanson d’Antioche_. In the printed editions of Geoffrey’s history the other leader figures as _Sautius_ and _Saucius_, but these are probably misreadings of _Santius_ and _Sancius_, Latin for Sancho or Sanchez. Sérannes or Serranes is the name of a cluster of hills in what is now the department of Héraut; most likely this bandit chief had a favourite lurking-place there; cf. “Willekin of the Weald.”

[195] G. Vigeois, 333, 334.

[196] _Ib._, 333-4.

[197] “Citramarinos principes.”

[198] G. Vigeois, 335-6.

[199] _Gesta_, i. 299.

[200] G. Vigeois, 335.

[201]

“Tost l’agral reis joves matat, Sil coms nol [nos, Stimming] n’agues ensenhat; Mas aissils clan els enserra Qu’Engolmes a per fort cobrat E tot Saintonge delivrat Tro lai part Finibus Terra.”

—“Eu chant,” ll. 7-12. Bertrand’s modern commentators have assumed that the nominative to “a cobrat e ... delivrat” is “lo reis joves,” and understood ll. 9-12 as referring to the invasion of the Angoumois and Saintonge by the Routiers in behalf of young Henry. I venture to suggest that the true nominative is “lo coms”—_i. e._, the count of Poitou. There could be no “recovery” of the Angoumois either by or for young Henry, who had never had any authority there. The whole structure and context of the lines indicate that they refer to Richard. “Finibus Terra,” Finisterre, doubtless stands here, like “Broceliande” in another of Bertrand’s poems (“D’un sirventes nom chal,” l. 33), simply for Britanny.

[202] “Eu chant,” ll. 5-12, 16-18. On l. 8, “Sil coms,” etc., see Stimming’s note, 155.

[203] G. Vigeois, 336.

[204] “Eu chant,” ll. 37-42.

[205] G. Vigeois, 338.

[206] _Ib._, 337.

[207] _Ib._, 336, 338.

[208] _Ib._, 337; cf. _Gesta_, i. 302, 303.

[209] G. Vigeois, 337.

[210] On comparing the words of G. Vigeois, _l.c._—“Castrum ... dux jure praelii cepit”—with those of Bertrand himself—“Autafort, Qu’eu ai rendut Al senhor de Niort, Quar l’a volgut” (“Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 5-8), I think this must be the real meaning of both.

[211] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 9-14.

[212] G. Vigeois, _l.c._

[213] “Nom chal d’Autafort, Mais far dreit ni tort, Qu’el jutjamen crei Monsenhor lo rei”; last four lines of “Ges de far sirventes.”

[214] “Ges de far,” ll. 9, 10.

[215] Literally “as true as any silver”—“fi com us argens,” “Ges no mi desconort,” l. 50.

[216] _Gesta_, i. 308.

[217] A. Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 373, from a document in the cartulary of Fontevraud. The “five years” which John is there stated to have spent in the abbey must be prior to February 1173; this appears from later notices of his whereabouts cited in my _John Lackland_, pp. 7, 8.

[218] _Gesta_, i. 308.

[219] G. Vigeois, 342.

[220] _Ib._, 338.

[221] Cf. _ib._, 338, 339, Rigord (ed. Delaborde), i. 36, and on the “Pacifici,” R. Torigni, a. 1183, Gerv. Cant., i. 300, 301, and Rigord, i. 37-39.

[222] G. Vigeois, 338.

[223] “Lobar seu le Bar,” _ib._, 323, 324, 326, 342. In a Life of S. Stephen of Grandmont which seems to date from the time of Pope Clement III (1187-91) or soon after, the same man is called “Lupardus.” Labbe, _Biblioth._, ii. 676.

[224] G. Vigeois, 342.

[225] _Gesta_, i. 306.

[226] _Gesta_, i. 306.

[227]

“E li reis l’aveit mult amee; Des que il esteit coens de Peitiers, La coveita sis covestiers.”

_Est. de la Guerre Sainte_, ll. 1150-2.

“A multo tempore quo comes erat Pictavensis ... plurimum desideravit eam,” _Itin._, 175.

[228] _Gesta_, i. 311.

[229] _Ib._, 319.

[230] _Gesta_, i. 319-21.

[231] _Ib._ 333, 334.

[232] _Ib._, 337.

[233] _Ib._, 313.

[234] _Ib._, 337, 338.

[235] _Gesta_, i. 338.

[236] _Ib._, 318, 319; R. Howden, ii. 288.

[237] _Gesta_, i. 322.

[238]

“Membrelh [Felip] sa sor el maritz orgolhos Que la laissa e no la vol tener; Aquest forfaitz mi sembla desplazer, E tot ades que s’en vai perjuran, Quel reis Navars l’a sai dat per espos A sa filha, per que l’anta es plus gran.” B. de Born, “Seu fos aissi senher,” ll. 22-8.

Thomas (73) and Stimming (36) are agreed that this _sirventes_ dates from 1188. Stimming seems to think the lines quoted above refer to an event of quite recent occurrence; but anything like an avowed troth-plight between Richard and Berengaria at any time except between December 1183 and March 1186 would have been an insult to France so flagrant that neither Richard nor Sancho is likely to have run the risks which it would have involved. During that period, however, such a betrothal would give Philip no lawful ground for complaint, although a mischief-maker might easily use it, either at the time or some years later, to excite the French king’s resentment against a man who had thus failed to appreciate the honour of becoming his brother-in-law and preferred a daughter of Navarre to a daughter of France.

[239] _Gesta_, i. 343, 344; date from R. Diceto, ii. 40.

[240] _Gesta_, i. 345.

[241] R. Diceto, _l.c._

[242] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[243] _Gesta_, i. 345.

[244] _Ib._, 347, 350.

[245] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 43, 44, with _Gesta_, i. 353.

[246] _Gesta_, ii. 5.

[247] Rigord, _l.c._

[248] Gerv. Cant., i. 346; cf. Rigord, _l.c._, who mentions only the dowry, not the bride.

[249] Rigord, _l.c._

[250] _Ib._, 78.

[251] Cf. Rigord, 78, _Gesta_, ii. 6, and Gerv. Cant., i. 369.

[252] Gerv. Cant., i. 371-3.

[253] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 2.

[254] “Johannes ... cujus promotionis causa haec omnia mala sustinui.” Gir. Cambr., _De. Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.

[255] R. Diceto, ii. 49. Gerald, _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 2, says one year; but Ralf is more to be trusted on this point. On the other hand, Ralf’s date—Tuesday, the eve of S. John—is a day too early to be compatible with the circumstantial narrative of Gervase.

[256] Rigord, i. 79.

[257] _Gesta_, ii. 7.

[258] Gerv. Cant., i. 373.

[259] _Gesta_, ii. 7.

[260] _Ib._, 9.

[261] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 5.

[262] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 50; W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.

[263] Gerv. Cant., i. 389.

[264] W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.

[265] _Gesta_, ii. 29. This writer, Roger of Howden (ii. 334), and R. Diceto (ii. 51) date the conference January 21; Gervase (i. 406) says “about S. Vincent’s day” (January 22); Rigord (83) and William the Breton (_Gesta Ph. Aug._, 187) say January 13. Probably it began on S. Hilary’s day, was suspended owing to the arrival of the archbishop of Tyre, and was resumed on January 21.

[266] _Gesta_, ii. 29-30. W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23, represents the conference as held in consequence of the archbishop’s coming, and for no other purpose than to consult as to what could be done for Palestine. Rigord (_l.c._), Gir. Cambr. (_De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 5), Gerv. Cant. (i. 406) and R. Diceto (_l.c._) say merely that the kings held a conference and took the Cross.

[267] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._

[268] _Gesta_, ii. 30.

[269] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.

[270] _Ib._

[271] On January 30; _Gesta_, ii. 33.

[272] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.

[273] R. Diceto, ii. 54, 55.

[274] _Gesta_, ii. 34.

[275] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._

[276] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.

[277] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 55, and _Gesta_, ii. 34.

[278] Gir. Cambr., _l.c._

[279] _Gesta_, _l.c._; cf. R. Diceto, _l.c._, Rigord (ed. Delaborde, 90) dates this invasion of Toulouse “inter Pentecosten et festum S. Johannis,” _i. e._ between June 5 and 24; we shall, however, see that it must have taken place some considerable time before June 16. In my _Angevin Kings_ I adopted Rigord’s date, but I now recognize that this was an error, and that the editors of Vic and Vaissète are right in following William the Breton, who (ed. Delaborde, i. 187) places the expedition “a short time after” (_modico post elapso tempore_) a council which according to Rigord (_ib._, 84) was held at Paris in March. Otherwise there would not have been time for all the captures, negotiations, etc. “Toulouse” here evidently means the county of Toulouse proper; the Quercy was already in Richard’s hands, annexed by him to his ducal domains in 1186.

[280] Rigord, 90; cf. R. Diceto, _l.c._, _Gesta_, ii. 36, and Gerv. Cant., ii. 432.

[281] _Gesta_, ii. 34, 35.

[282] Rigord, 90.

[283] _Gesta_, ii. 35, 36.

[284] R. Diceto, ii. 55.

[285] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 7.

[286] _Ib._

[287] _Gesta_, ii. 40. It is noticeable that the Angevin princes are at this period always represented as describing their Toulousan rival only by his ancestral title derived from the little county of S. Gilles which was the cradle of his family, thus tacitly reserving their own claim to be the rightful holders, not merely overlords, of his greater possession, Toulouse.

[288] Montrichard, Montrésor, Coulangé; Rigord, 91, 92.

[289] Date from R. Diceto, _l.c._ Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 39, and Rigord, _l.c._

[290] Gerv. Cant. i. 432, 433; cf. _Gesta_, ii. 40.

[291] Rigord, 92.

[292] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[293] _Ib._, ii. 45.

[294] “Ne nihil ageretur,” Gerv. Cant., i. 434.

[295] Gerv. Cant., i. 434.

[296] Rigord, _l.c._

[297] _Gesta_, ii. 45; cf. _ib._, 39, 40.

[298] R. Diceto, ii. 55; cf. W. Armor., _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (ed. Delaborde), 188, 189.

[299] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 7389-405, 7610-40.

[300] _Gesta_, ii. 46. William the Breton in his _Philippis_, lib. iii. ll. 410-624, gives a much longer account of this affair, with a minute description of the personal struggle between Richard and William des Barres, and no mention at all of the capture of William. There can hardly be a doubt that the English prose writer’s brief version is more trustworthy than the French poet-historiographer’s lengthy elaboration. The latter has, however, one interesting touch; in ll. 445-6 the poet makes William des Barres say of Richard: “Rictus agnosco leonum Illius in clypeo.”

[301] _Gesta_, ii. 46.

[302] This is an inference from the fact that Philip is said to have taken Palluau after the conference in October, _Gesta_, ii. 49.

[303] _Gesta_, ii. 49.

[304] _Ib._

[305] “Fo ordenatz per lor us parlamens ou foron ensems en la marcha de Torena e de Beiriu, els reis Felips si fetz mains reclams d’en Richart, dont amdui vengron a grans paraulas e a malas, si qu’en Richartz lo desmenti el clamet vil recrezen, e sis desfieron e sis partiron a mal.” _Razo_ of B. de Born’s _sirventes_ “Al dous nous,” Thomas, 69, 70. Cf. Bertrand’s own words in the same _sirventes_, ll. 28-31: “Guerra sens fuoc e sens sanc De rei ni de gran poesta Cui coms laidis ne desmenta Non es ges paraula genta.”

[306] _Gesta_, ii. 49.

[307] R. Diceto, ii. 57.

[308] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.

[309] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8116-39. This writer’s story is here somewhat confused; he gives to the conference a date which is certainly wrong—“a cluse Pasque, le mardi” (l. 8069), _i. e._, Tuesday, April 18, 1189, instead of November 18, 1188.

[310] “Proposuit rex Francorum quod ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat Anglorum regi restitueret, et post, omnia manerent in eo statu quo fuerunt ante crucem susceptam.... Comes Pictavorum penitus contradixit; sibi quidem videbatur incongruum quod hac servata conditione Cadurcum redderet et totum comitatum, et alia multa ... pro feodo de Castro Radulfi et de castello de Hissoudun et Crazai,” etc., R. Diceto, ii. 58. The two kings took the Cross in January 1188. The date of Richard’s annexation of the Quercy is not certain, but it must be either 1186 or spring 1188. Philip took Châteauroux in June 1188; but he had won Issoudun and Graçay in the spring of 1187, therefore these two places would not be included in a restoration of “ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat.” The only possible explanation of the discrepancy seems to be that Ralph de Diceto momentarily confused the conference at which Philip and Henry took the Cross, at Gisors in January 1188, with their meeting at the same place on March 10, 1186.