Chapter II: Richard and France (4)

[311] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 58, Rigord, 92, 93, Gerv. Cant., i. 435, and _Gesta_, ii. 50. The biographer of William the Marshal gives (ll. 8089-175) a somewhat different account of the conference; he says nothing of any request made there by Richard to his father, but represents Philip as urging Henry to increase Richard’s actual possessions by giving him Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and asserts that before the conference Philip had won Richard over to him by promising “qu’il li dorreit en demeine” those three counties, and Richard had privately done him homage for them. If we accept this story, we must regard the whole conduct not only of Philip but also of Richard at Bonmoulins as a piece of utterly shameless acting, performed with the deliberate purpose on Richard’s part of breaking finally with his father; for no sane person could expect any other answer than a refusal to such a request as this. The whole story of the relations between Henry, Richard, and Philip is, however, only touched upon in a very meagre and perfunctory way by the Marshal’s biographer, whose subject it did not directly concern, and who has almost certainly made one positive mistake with regard to the Bonmoulins conference, in giving it a date which is five months too late; I think therefore that the version of Rigord, Ralph de Diceto, and Gervase of Canterbury is to be in every way preferred to his.

[312] R. Diceto, ii. 58.

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

[314] R. Diceto, _l.c._; _Gesta_, ii. 50. Cf. Rigord, 93.

[315] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[316] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 58.

[317] “Eissi commensa la meslee Qui unques ne fu desmelee,” _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8185-6.

[318] Gerv. Cant., i. 435, 436.

[319] R. Howden, ii. 355.

[320] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8189-254.

[321] Cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 436.

[322] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8285-9.

[323] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.

[324] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 10.

[325] _Gesta_, ii. 61. Probably they joined forces in Berry and thence made an incursion into Touraine.

[326] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.

[327] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8311-30.

[328] R. Diceto, ii. 62.

[329] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 13.

[330] He visited Henry at Le Mans on Ascension Day, May 18; _Epp. Cant._, 90.

[331] Reims, Bourges, Rouen and Canterbury; _Gesta_, ii. 61.

[332] _Ib._, 66, with date “adveniente Pentecoste.” Rog. Howden, ii. 362, says “in octavis Pentecostes,” which agrees better with Gerald’s statement (_l.c._ c. 14) that the war began “about June 1.” Gervase of Canterbury (i. 446) is of course doubly wrong in placing the assembly “apud Cenomannum quinto Idus Junii.”

[333] _Gesta_, R. Howden, and Gerv. Cant., _ll.cc._

[334] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._

[335] _Gesta_, ii. 66.

[336] R. Howden, ii. 363.

[337] _Ib._, 362.

[338] _Ib._, 363.

[339] _Gesta_, ii. 67.

[340] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8349-50.

[341] _Ib._, 8357-74.

[342] “Rex Francorum et Comes ... intra paucos dies Feritatem praedictam, Baalum, Bellummontem ... occupaverunt. A municipalibus circumquaque _Comiti_ fit deditio castellorum.” R. Diceto, ii. 62, 63. Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 67, where Maletable—“Malum Stabulum”—is probably a mistake for Bonnétable, about half way between La Ferté and Beaumont. The Marshal’s biographer (ll. 8362-68), like the _Gesta_, does not mention Richard, and names only three castles as falling into Philip’s hands—La Ferté, Ballon, and “Montfort le Retrot, qui gaires n’ert fort, E li fust tantost rendu, Unques ne fust defendu.” He, however, certainly knew of Richard’s presence with the French host, for we shall see that he expressly mentions him as engaged in the pursuit from Le Mans on June 12. If Beaumont was given up without resistance, its constable, not its owner the viscount, was probably answerable for the surrender, since it was at another of the viscount’s castles, La Frênaye, that Henry found shelter soon afterwards.

[343] _Gesta_, ii. 67.

[344] Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8835-46 with ll. 9321-37, and the brief summary of Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25: “Cessante vero demum persequentium instantia per Comitis Pictaviensis casum, equum ejusdem militari lancea perfosso.”

[345] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8847-64.

[346] _Gesta_, ii. 68, 69.

[347] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.

[348] Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 69, Gir. Cambr., _l.c._, W. Armor., _Gesta Phil. Aug._, 190, and _Philippis_, lib. iii. ll. 735-8 (the poet gives the date of the meeting by implication in l. 748), and Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, ii. lxvii, note 2.

[349] _Gesta_, ii. 70, 71.

[350] _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 8957.

[351] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 26.

[352] _Ib._, 25; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9068-78.

[353] _Gesta_, ii. 69.

[354] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9245-8.

[355] The statement in _Gesta Ricardi_ (_Gesta Hen. et Ric._, ii.), 71, that he met the funeral procession on the way and accompanied it “flens et ejulans” is at variance with a better authority for the details of the burial—the _Hist. G. le Mar._—and is improbable for geographical reasons.

[356] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9294-8.

[357] Disfigured, “sicut perhibent qui presentes fuerunt et viderunt,” by a bleeding from the nostrils which began as soon as Richard entered the church and ceased only when he went out again; Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28.

[358] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9299-303.

[359] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28.

[360] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9304-41.

[361] Gilbert Pipard, a well-known officer of the Exchequer; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9347-51.

[362] The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9350-1, says Richard bade the envoys themselves “Si pernez garde de ma terre E de trestot mon autre afaire”; but the English chroniclers know nothing of this, and one of them distinctly asserts that Eleanor was made regent: “Alienor regina ... statuendi quae vellet in regno potestatem accepit a filio. Datum siquidem est in mandatis regni principibus et quasi sub edicto generali statutum ut ad reginae nutum omnia disponerentur.” R. Diceto, ii. 66. (This passage is immediately followed by the one about “aquila rupti fœderis.”) Cf. _Gesta_, 74.

[363] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9361-408. Châteauroux, it will be remembered, had been in Philip’s hands since June 1187.

[364] His very identity is a puzzle; under Henry II we read of Stephen de Matha, Stephen de Marzay, Stephen of Turnham, and Stephen “de Turonis,” all bearing the title of “Seneschal of Anjou,” and it is doubtful whether or not all these names represent the same man. In the passage now before us the _Gesta_ (71) call him “de Turonis,” but it is clear from other evidence that this means Turnham, not Tours. The _Gesta_ continue (71, 72): “Et uxorem filii praedicti Stephani propter ignobilitatem mariti ab ipso separari fecit [rex] et alii marito dari; minans se hujusmodi nobilium puellarum vel viduarum cum ignobilibus contubernia sua auctoritate secundum leges separare.” Is it possible that Stephen’s crime consisted in having contrived or connived at a ceremony of marriage, without licence from the Crown, between his son and some royal ward who had been committed to his custody? Such a marriage, if merely formal and if the parties were under age, might be voidable by a sentence of the king. According to R. Devizes, 6, 7 (ed. Stevenson), Richard brought Stephen over with him, in chains, to England, and kept him in prison at Winchester till he redeemed himself by a heavy fine. This fine may have been either for the misdemeanour which I have suggested, or in remission of a vow of Crusade—which vow, however, Stephen fulfilled after all.

[365] _Gesta_, 72.

[366] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.

[367] R. Diceto, ii. 66, 67.

[368] _Gesta_, 73; R. Diceto, ii. 67.

[369] Rigord, 97.

[370] Date from _Gesta_, 73, 74; place from R. Howden, iii. 4.

[371] _Gesta_, 74.

[372] _Ib._; R. Howden, iii. 4; Gerv. Cant., i. 450, 451 (who seems to have got confused between Auvergne and Berry); and Rigord, 97, whose statement is of course conclusive as to the final terms so far as the lands are concerned.

[373] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.

[374] _Ib._, 450.

[375] _Ib._, 457; _Gesta_, 75, with a self-contradictory date.

[376] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._, says Southampton; the _Gesta_, _l.c._, say Portsmouth.

[377] Gerv. Cant., i. 453, 454, 457; R. Diceto, ii. 67; cf. _Gesta_, 76. The first gives date August 14, the second August 15.

[378] _Gesta_, 75.

[379] _Gesta_, 74, 75.

[380] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.

[381] _Gesta_, 75-6.

[382] Gerv. Cant., i. 457.

[383] The _Itin. Ric. Reg._, 142, says “die S. Ægidii receptus est cum processione apud Westmonasterium, et die tertia sequenti ... unctus est in regem.” Gervase, i. 457, dates the arrival in London September 2. The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9568-9, says, “A mult riche procession Fu receuz dedenz Seint Pol,” without any date.

[384] _Itin._, 142; Gerv. Cant., i. 457; R. Diceto, ii. 68; _Gesta_, 78, 79.

[385] Ralph de Diceto, who as dean of S. Paul’s handed the ampulla to the Primate, the bishop of London, to whom this duty belonged, being absent through illness. R. Diceto, ii. 69.

[386] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 68, _Gesta_, 81, 82, and R. Howden, iii. 10.

[387] _Gesta_, 82; R. Howden, iii. 10, 11.

[388] _Estoire de la Croisade_, ll. 205, 206; the writer implies that he was there.

[389] _Gesta_, 83.

[390] _Gesta_, 83; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.

[391] W. Newb., _l.c._

[392] _Ib._

[393] _Gesta_, 84.

[394] W. Newb., _l.c._

[395] _Gesta_, 84.

[396] So at least we should gather from the treasurer’s apparent inability to find any money for King Henry’s funeral; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9173-200. Of course we must remember that Richard himself had emptied that treasury two years before. This again implies that he was at that time short of money in Aquitaine, and therefore not likely to have since then accumulated anything in the way of a reserve fund there.

[397] _Gesta_, 76, 77; R. Howden, iii. 8.

[398] “Nongenta millia librarum,” _Gesta_, 77; “Thesaurus ... magnus valde, excedens numerum et valentiam centum millia marcarum” (= £66,666 13_s._ 4_d._), R. Howden, _l.c._ There can be little doubt that the _Gesta’s_ figure is, as Dr. Stubbs suggested it might be, an error for “nonaginta.” We know that the royal revenue for the financial year which ended three weeks after Richard’s coronation amounted to somewhat less than fifty thousand pounds (£48,781; Stubbs, preface to _Gesta_, ii. xcix).

[399] R. Howden, iii. 17.

[400] _Gesta_, 90.

[401] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.

[402] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 10.

[403] _Gesta_, 90, 91.

[404] R. Howden, iii. 13.

[405] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; cf. R. Devizes, 10.

[406] R. Howden, ii. 302.

[407] R. Devizes, 7.

[408] _Gesta_, 87; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4. Elsewhere the former writer includes Ranulf among the officers whom he represents as compulsorily deposed and held to ransom: “Eodem mense Ricardus Rex deposuit a balliis suis Ranulfum de Glanvilla justiciarium Angliae et fere omnes vicecomites,” etc. (_Gesta_, 90); but his own statement in p. 87, confirmed by William of Newburgh, suffices to contradict this so far as Glanville is concerned.

[409] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4.

[410] _Epp. Cantuar._, 329.

[411] _Gesta_, 87, 90, 91; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxviii, note 3.

[412] Gir. Cambr., _Vita Galfr._, lib. i. c. 6 (_Opera_, iv. 374).

[413] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 9.

[414] _Gesta_, 72; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxiv, note 1.

[415] _Gesta_, 78.

[416] See _John Lackland_, 26-8, and the references there given in footnotes.

[417] The gross total of the ferms and other profits of the six counties for the year ending Michaelmas 1189 was £4,081 9_s._ 8_d._; Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, iii. xxv, note 4. The greater part of this sum was derived from the miscellaneous profits, which were liable to fluctuation. The £500-£600 worth of other lands given to John would no doubt insure that this fluctuation should not reduce John’s total annual income from his English possessions (irrespective of his Gloucester earldom and honour) below £4000. Stubbs (_l.c._, xxiv, note 2) thought that “this promise of £4000 a year in land was not regarded as fulfilled by the bestowal of the counties.... We find that in 1195 when John had been removed from the government of the counties, his income from the Exchequer was £8000 (Howden, iii. 286), but ... in Angevin money and only equal to £2000 sterling.” Howden’s words in the place here cited are “Eodem anno Ricardus rex Angliae remisit Johanni fratri suo omnem iram et malivolentiam suam, et reddidit ei comitatum de Moretonia et honorem de Eia, et comitatum Glocestriae, cum omni integritate eorum, exceptis castellis; et pro omnibus aliis comitatibus et terris suis dedit ei rex per annum octo millia librarum Andegavensis monetae.” To me these words seem to imply nothing definite as to the relative value of the counties and other lands of which John had been deprived and of the money compensation given to him in their stead in 1195. Nor does Bishop Stubbs’s further remark, “However, it is clear that whilst he was in charge of the counties he was receiving a large sum from the Exchequer; R. Devizes, 26,” seem to me borne out by the passage to which he here gives a reference, and which runs thus: “Colloquium primum inter comitem de Moretonio, fratrem regis, et cancellarium, de custodiis quorumdam castellorum et de pecunia comiti a fratre de scaccario concessa, apud Wintoniam ad Laetare Hierusalem” (_i. e._, March 4, 1191).

[418] Or Geddington; R. Diceto, ii. 69. Geddington was a royal manor; the king lodged in his own house there, but the council meetings were held in Pipewell Abbey, which stood within the boundaries of the manor. _Monasticon_, v. 431.

[419] Stubbs, note to _Gesta_, 97.

[420] _Ann. Cambr._, 57.

[421] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[422] _Ib._, 92, 93; R. Howden, iii. 20. Richard was in London November 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 (Stubbs, _Gesta_, 97, note 3). According to the _Gesta_, the person who swore for Richard was William de Mandeville; according to R. Howden, William the Marshal. If the former be right the date must be before November 14, for on that day William de Mandeville died; R. Diceto, ii. 73.

[423] _Itin._, 145.

[424] _Ib._; Gerv. Cant., i. 474. The precise dates are November 26 to December 5; Stubbs, notes to _Gesta_, 97, 98.

[425] _Gesta_, 97, 99.

[426] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 72, and Gerv. Cant., i. 474.

[427] R. Diceto, ii. 72, 73; cf. _Gesta_, 99.

[428] Chron. Mailros, a. 1157.

[429] _Gesta Hen._, i. 96, 98.

[430] _Ib._ 351; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.

[431] R. Howden, ii. 338, 339.

[432] _Gesta Hen._, ii. 44.

[433] £6,666 13_s._ 4_d._, W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; R. Diceto, ii. 72. The _Gesta_, 98, make the sum 10,000 marks sterling, _i. e._, £6,600. The charter in which Richard’s concessions to William are embodied contains no mention of money.

[434] _Fœdera_, I. i. 50. Date, December 5, 1189.

[435] “Pactiones quas ... Henricus rex per novas cartas et per captionem suam” (_i. e._, Willelmi) “extorsit.”

[436] William had been captured, with some sixty of his men, when the bulk of the force with which he was besieging Alnwick was out of reach, by a body of several hundred English knights who had ridden to the place through a thick mist which prevented them from seeing where they were and the Scots from discovering their approach till a sudden clearing of the air surprised both parties alike by revealing their presence to each other, and the little band of Scots, though they made a splendid fight, were easily surrounded. W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 33; Jordan Fantosme, ll. 1731-1839.

[437] This is the date of Richard’s charter as printed from an original copy in _Fœdera_, I. i. 50. “He,” says Richard, “became our liegeman for all the lands for which his ancestors were liegemen of our ancestors, and he swore fealty to us and our heirs.” See also _Gesta_, 104.

[438] _Gesta_, 100.

[439] R. Diceto, ii. 73, makes the date December 14 and the landing-place Gravelines; the _Gesta_ writer, 101, says “xi^o die Decembris, in vigilia S. Luciae,” which is self-contradictory, S. Lucy’s day being December 13. For “in vigilia S. Luciae” Roger of Howden (iii. 28) substitutes “feria secunda,” which would be right for December 11, 1189. Both these latter writers say that Richard landed at Calais, and that the Count of Flanders met him on his landing and escorted him “cum gaudio” into Normandy.

[440] At Bures, according to _Gesta_, 104; at Lions, according to _Itin._, 145.

[441] _Est. de la Guerre Ste._, ll. 247-50.

[442] The proclamation inserted by R. Diceto, ii. 73, 74, is dated Nonancourt, December 30; the _Gesta_, 104, places the meeting at the Ford of S. Rémi. This was the usual place for conferences, and is close to Nonancourt.

[443] The _Gesta_, 105, and R. Diceto, ii. 74, say that S. John Baptist’s day was the date fixed at the second conference, which was held on January 13 (_Gesta_, _l.c._). R. Diceto, however, elsewhere (ii. 77) gives Midsummer as the date fixed at the third conference, which he says took place on the day on which the Queen of France died, or was buried; it is not clear which he means. She died on March 15; Rigord, 97. This is clearly the conference at which the _Estoire_, ll. 259-86, and _Itin._ 146, tell us the kings received the news of her death (she died unexpectedly, in childbirth), and agreed to set out each from his own dominions on S. John Baptist’s day and meet at Vézelay for the final start together on the octave. The _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ place this conference “at Dreux.” Richard was at Nonancourt on March 14 (_Fœdera_, I. i. 51); the Gué St. Rémi is midway between these two towns and was no doubt the real meeting-place.

[444] _Gallia Christ._, i. 988.

[445] Richard, _Comtes._, ii. 263.

[446] R. Diceto, ii. 73. R. Coggeshall, 26, says December 12, but there are several indications that Mandeville was dead before Richard left England.

[447] _Gesta_, 101. Roger of Howden, iii. 28, says: “Hugo Dunelmensis et Willelmus Eliensis Episcopi remanserunt in Anglia summi justiciarii”; but the _Gesta_ and R. Devizes (11) distinctly imply that at this time William of Ely, though practically viceroy, was not titularly chief justiciar. He was, however, added to the number of assistant justiciars (_Gesta_, _l.c._), and probably this is what Roger really means.

[448] _Gesta_, 105, 106. R. Howden, iii. 32.

[449] _Gesta_, 106.

[450] After March 27; see _Fœdera_, I. i. 51.

[451] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[452] _Ib._

[453] R. Howden, iii. 8.

[454] There is one rather curious-looking case of a ship which the king seems to have originally bought for £100, given to the Knights of the Hospital (in England), and bought back from them for £9. Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 13. But I do not feel quite sure of the meaning of the passage.

[455] See extract from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. II in Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 11-13. A captain’s pay was double that of a common sailor; _ib._ The total of ships enumerated in this passage, exclusive of smacks, whose number is not given, is forty-seven. The total of the fleet when it set out was 107 or 108 “besides some others which followed”: _Est._, ll. 311-13, _Itin._ 47.

[456] _Gesta_, 110, 111; R. Howden, iii. 36, 37. These ordinances are dated “apud Chinonem.” As in both the writers who record them they are inserted after some events which took place in England in June, and as Richard is known, from several sources, to have been at Chinon on June 20, this is the date usually assigned for their issue. But it cannot be correct; for both our authorities say that the fleet sailed “statim post Pascha” (March 25), and that a part of it entered the Bay of Biscay on Ascension day (May 6); _Gesta_, 116; R. Howden, iii. 42. These ordinances, and the sailing order issued at the same time with them, must therefore have been issued before Easter. We have seen that Richard met Philip on the Norman border on March 15, the Thursday before Palm Sunday; after that, we have no notice of his whereabouts till April 17, when he was at Chinon (Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, 264). In all likelihood he had been there for a month, almost ever since his meeting with Philip.

[457] _Gesta_, 111, 116. The _Itin._, 147, and _Est._, ll. 307-10, represent this order for immediate departure as issued much later still, from Tours, just before the king himself set out thence for Vézelay, _i. e._, at the end of June; but as has been shown in the preceding note, this is quite incompatible with the date at which the fleet actually sailed.

[458] Endowment charter, dated Luçon, May 5 (1190); witnesses, Peter Bertin, seneschal of Poitou (appointed not before February 21, 1190, Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, 265), Stephen de Marzay, Brother Miles the duke’s almoner, Ralf FitzGeoffrey his chamberlain, and John of Alençon his vice-chancellor, who sealed the deed. Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 265; from Tardif, _Archives du Poitou_ (Trésor des Chartes), xi. 408.

[459] _Gesta_, 99. The earlier queen referred to is there called Matilda, but as the writer calls Stephen’s wife “Alicia,” it is possible that he has reversed the names and that the other queen whom he intended to mention was not Maud of Scotland but Henry’s second wife, Adeliza of Louvain.

[460] “Gourfaille, canton de Pissotte, Vendée,” Richard, _Comtes_, _l.c._, from _Archives du Poitou_, i. 120.

[461] _Gall. Christ._, ii. instr. 388. On the 7th he was at S. Jean d’Angély; Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 266, from _Arch. Hist. de Saintonge_, xxviii. 140.

[462] June 6; letter in R. Diceto, ii. 83.

[463] R. Howden, iii. 35. Roger calls this man William of “Chisi”; Richard, _Comtes_, ii. 263, says “Chis, Hautes Pyrénées,” and seems to date this expedition earlier, between February 21 and April 17; but he gives no reason for so doing, and it seems therefore better to accept the sequence of events given by Roger, with which Richard’s presence at Bayonne on June 6 fits in very well.

[464] Stapleton, _Norm. Exch. Rolls_, i. cxlv.

[465] R. Devizes, 15.

[466] R. Howden, iii. 36—miscalling the archbishop “William” as usual.

[467] _Ib._, 37. There is documentary evidence of Richard’s presence at Tours on June 27, 1190; Teulet, _Layettes_, i. 158. Probably he was there several days earlier, as otherwise Philip would hardly have had time to visit him there and then go to Paris before setting out for Vézelay.

[468] _Est._, ll. 324-34.

[469] On June 27 Richard went from Tours to Montrichard (_Fœdera_, I. i. 48) by way of Azay (on the Cher, close to Tours); _Itin._, 149. In the next four days he passed through Selles (on the Cher) and La Chapelle [d’Anguillon, in Berry] to Donzy, in the Nivernais (_Itin._, _l.c._), where he was on July 1 (_Fœdera_, _l.c._). He may have gone from Donzy to Vézelay on that day. He was certainly at Vézelay on July 3 (_Monast._ VI. i. 327). Rigord (i. 99) says: “Feria quarta post octavas S. Johannis Baptistae” [= Wednesday, July 4] “cum rege Anglorum Ricardo apud Vizeliacum venit [rex Francorum],” which looks as if the kings had met on the way and arrived together; but if so, Rigord’s date is, as we have just seen, at least a day too late. The _Gesta Ric._ (111) say the two kings stayed at Vézelay two days, and the _Itinerarium_ (151) enumerates seven places through which they passed “distinctis dietis” from there to Lyons (M. Gaston Paris accepts this passage in the _Itinerarium_ as authentic, believing it to be derived “from an official source”). This would mean their leaving Vézelay on July 6 and reaching Lyons on the 13th; but from certain words in the _Gesta_ it seems possible, and I think even probable, that the true dates are the 3rd and the 10th. The whole sentence in the _Gesta_ runs thus: “Ibi [sc. apud Vizeliacum] moram fecerunt [reges] per duos dies _in octavis S. Iohannis Baptistae_.” Strictly interpreted, this should mean “within the octave”; it might mean “beginning on the octave,” _i. e._, July 1-3; but it cannot correctly represent July 4-6. Either it is a blunder, or Rigord is wrong in dating Philip’s arrival on the 4th. I venture to think the latter alternative the likelier of the two, as the English chroniclers appear to have followed their sovereign’s travels with great care, while Rigord is certainly far from being a specially accurate chronologist.

[470] _Est._, ll. 365-75; _Itin._, 150.

[471] _Gesta_, 111.

[472] _Est._, ll. 377-8.

[473] The stages are given in _Itin._ 151. See note 7 to p. 117 above.

[474] _Est._, ll. 413-28; _Itin._, _l.c._

[475] _Est._, ll. 429-36.

[476] It is said to have numbered 100,000; _Est._, l. 419, _Itin._, _l.c._

[477] _Gesta_, 112; _Est._, ll. 449-65; _Itin._, 152.

[478] _Est._, ll. 466-90. “Le Rogne, l’eve crestee,” l. 414.

[479] _Ib._, ll. 491-7.

[480] The two kings having agreed to separate their forces because they found them too numerous to travel in one body; _Gesta_, 112.

[481] _Itin._, 152.

[482] _Ib._, _Est._, ll. 499-510.

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

[484] We get this date from the _Gesta_, 112, where it is said that Richard stayed at Marseille eight days and left on August 7. The author of the _Itinerarium_ enumerates (153) fifteen places which he says “_we_ went through” (_transivimus_) from Lyons to Marseille; but he does not (as in his account of the journey from Vézelay to Lyons) specify how many days’ travelling these stages represent; and moreover, he is evidently here not describing Richard’s journey at all, for he ends “apud Marsiliam, ubi moram fecimus per tres hebdomadas; postea mare intravimus, scilicet die proxima post festum Assumptionis Beatae Mariae,” _i. e._, August 16; that is, he represents himself as having reached Marseille on July 26. Supposing his narrative to be authentic, he must therefore have travelled from Lyons to Marseille not with the king, but in advance of him. On the other hand, if he was an impostor and not a Crusader at all, his evidence on this point is of no account. In either case, however, it is probable that the route he gives would occupy about a fortnight; Richard may therefore have set out from Lyons on July 17 or 18.

[485] R. Howden, iii. 51.

[486] _Ib._, 42.

[487] _Epp. Cantuar._, 328.

[488] _Gesta_, 15.

[489] The date of the death, November 1189, is given in _Gesta_, 101, 102.

[490] “Mare nauseans,” R. Devizes, 16.

[491] _Ib._

[492] _Gesta_, 112. R. Diceto, ii. 84, says “in vigilia S. Laurentii,” _i. e._, August 9; but in the _Gesta_ the date is the first of a whole series evidently derived from an official record of some kind, so it seems best to follow this authority.

[493] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[494] _Gesta_, 112-14.

[495] R. Diceto, ii. 84.

[496] _Gesta_, 114, 115.

[497] _Ib._, 124.

[498] _Gesta_, 115-22. 124; R. Howden, iii. 42-50. 53, 54.

[499] _Gesta_, 124; R. Diceto, ii. 84.

[500] Rigord, 106.

[501] Placed at his disposal by the new king of Sicily, Tancred; _Gesta_, _l.c._

[502] _Est._, ll. 573-80; _Itin._, 156.

[503] _Gesta_, 124, 125.

[504] _Est._, ll. 588-93.

[505] _Gesta_, 126; R. Howden, iii, 55. These and R. Diceto, ii. 84, give the date, September 23.

[506] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[507] _Est._, ll. 594-7.

[508] _Gesta_ and R. Howden, _ll.cc._

[509] The settlement is given at length in _Gesta_, i. 169, 170.

[510] Cf. _Gesta_, 132, 133, and R. Devizes, 19. According to the former authority the cups and dishes were of gold, according to the latter of silver.

[511] R. Devizes, 18.

[512] _Gesta_, 132.

[513] R. Devizes, 19. The _terrino_ was a small gold coin weighing twenty grains.

[514] _Gesta_, 126; date confirmed by R. Diceto, ii. 85.

[515] _Est._, ll. 549-58.

[516] _Est._, ll. 615-19.

[517] R. Devizes, 18.

[518] Cf. R. Devizes, 20, _Est._, ll. 547-58, 607-24, and _Gesta_, 138, 139.

[519] Cf. R. Devizes, 19, R. Diceto, ii. 85, _Gesta_, 127, and R. Howden, iii.

[520] It seems to have been really another beacon-tower or pharos, placed on the island—like the tower on the Sicilian mainland opposite Scylla, where Richard had first landed—to give warning of the proximity of Charybdis; see _Gesta_, 158.

[521] _Gesta_, 127; R. Devizes, 19.

[522] Cf. _Gesta_, _l.c._, and _Est._, ll. 627-44; the date is from the former. R. Devizes, 22, seems to make it October 2, but his whole account of the matter is fantastic, while that of the _Gesta_ is in close accord with the eye-witness Ambrose, the poet of the _Estoire_.

[523] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[524] _Ib._, 138; see Archer’s note on them, _Crusade of Richard I_, 31.

[525] _Gesta_, 128; R. Devizes, 22, 23; _Est._, ll. 649-53.

[526] _Est._, ll. 654-67.

[527] _Gesta_, 128; for Hugh the Brown cf. R. Diceto, ii. 85, _Est._, ll. 717-20, _Itin._ 161, and R. Devizes, 23.

[528] _Est._, ll. 683-5.

[529] _Ib._, ll. 721-36.

[530] _Ib._, ll. 689-701, 779-84.

[531] _Gesta_, 129.

[532] “Li reis fud un des premerains Qui osast entrer en la vile; Puis i entrerent bien dis mile,” Est., ll. 801-4. The _Itinerarium_, 163, says: “Primus civitatem intravit ipse dux et praevius,” and describes the entrance as effected “per posternam quandam quam rex Anglorum, secunda die adventus sui ad cautelam futurorum circuiens cum duobus sociis, quasi neglectam a civibus perpenderat” (162, 163). This is quite in accord with the character of Richard, who as we shall see later was in the habit of doing his own scouting; and the attack could hardly have been so successful unless some preparations for it had been made beforehand. Still, as the writer of the _Itinerarium_ does not in this part of his work speak as an eye-witness, and the one writer who does so speak—Ambrose—does not give this detail, I prefer to place it only in a footnote. Richard of Devizes, 23, says the town gates were broken down “admoto ariete dicto citius.” But he was certainly not there, and his whole account of the doings at Messina is too full of long speeches to be altogether trustworthy.

[533] “Plus tost eurent il pris Meschines C’uns prestres n’ad dit ses matines,” _Est._, ll. 809, 810. Cf. _Itin._, 163.

[534] R. Devizes, 24.

[535] _Est._, ll. 811-18.

[536] _Ib._, ll. 823-61; R. Howden, iii. 58. Howden’s phrase “rex Angliae signa sua deposuit” probably means only that Richard’s banners were placed beneath Philip’s in token of the feudal relation between the kings.

[537] _Est._, ll. 844-8.

[538] _Ib._, ll. 827-30.

[539] _Itin._, 166.

[540] _Gesta_, 129.

[541] _Ib._, 132.

[542] _Est._, ll. 867-86; _Itin._, 165, 166.

[543] _Est._, ll. 913-32; cf. _Itin._, 167.

[544] _Gesta_, 133.

[545] _Ib._, 138.

[546] _Est._, ll. 937, 938.

[547] _Gesta_, _l.c._; R. Devizes, 25; _Est._, ll. 939, 940.

[548] “Que ja a lui [_i. e._ Tancred] ne plaideroit, E que il se porchaceroit.” _Est._, ll. 941-50.

[549] _Est._, ll. 951-73.

[550] _Ib._, ll. 891-5.

[551] Rigord, 106.

[552] _Est._, ll. 977-1000; _Gesta_, 133-6; _Itin._, 169; R. Diceto, ii. 85; R. Devizes, 24, 25.

[553] Letter of Richard in _Gesta_, 133.

[554] Letters of Richard to Tancred and to the Pope, in _Gesta_, 133-8.

[555] _Gesta_, 136.

[556] Richard in both his letters cited above acknowledges the receipt of 20,000 ounces of gold as the dowry of Arthur’s betrothed. We shall see that the other sum, though the letters do not mention it, was paid also.

[557] _Est._, ll. 1049-52; _Itin._, 169, 170. Rigord (106), on the other hand, declares it was “thanks to King Philip’s intervention and efforts” that Tancred and Richard were reconciled—which is perhaps true in a sense, but not the sense in which Philip’s panegyrist meant it—and complains that of the forty thousand ounces of gold Philip “had only the third part, when he ought to have had half.”

[558] _Gesta_, 129-32.

[559] _Est._, ll. 1053-74; _Itin._, 171, 172. In the printed edition of the _Estoire_, line 1062 reads thus: “Richarz qui n’est aver ne chinches.” If _est_ be really the reading of the MS., it of course places beyond all doubt the correctness of M. Gaston Paris’s assertion that the poet “a certainement écrit avant la mort de Richard” (introd., p. 1.). But M. Paris does not cite this line in support of his assertion, and in his modern French version of the poem he renders the line “Richard, qui _n’était_ pas chiche ni avare” (p. 347). We are therefore at present left in doubt whether _n’est_ be not here a misprint for _n’ert_.

[560] _Gesta_, 157.

[561] _Ib._, 146, 147.

[562] _Est._, ll. 1080-1108; cf. _Gesta_, 150.

[563] _Gesta_, 150, 151.

[564] See above, p. 79.

[565] _Gesta_, 155-7.

[566] Rigord, 107.

[567] _Est._, ll. 1145-8.

[568] _Gesta_, 157; they are there said to have gone to Brindisi. February 27 that year was Ash Wednesday; possibly Richard had hoped they would arrive in time for the marriage to take place before Lent.

[569] Rigord, 107.

[570] So says _Itin._, 170, 171; in the _Gesta_, 158, he is said to have gone “per consilium regis Franciae,” which from the sequel does not seem very likely.

[571] _Gesta_, 158, 159.

[572] _Ib._, 159, 160.

[573] Charter of Philip, in _Fœdera_, I. i. 54, dated “March 1190,” the French year beginning on Lady day.

[574] “Tertio kalendas Aprilis, sabbato,” _Gesta_, 161; “die Sabbati post Annunciationem B. Mariae,” _Itin._, 175; _i. e._, Saturday, March 30. In p. 177, however, the author of the _Itinerarium_ says Richard sailed on the seventeenth day after Philip’s departure; which, as all authorities (this same writer included, _l.c._) date Richard’s departure from Messina on the Wednesday before Easter, _i. e._, April 10, ought to mean that Philip sailed on Lady day itself. R. Diceto, ii. 91, makes him sail “quarto kalendas Aprilis,” _i. e._, March 29; or, according to another MS., “tertio kalendas Aprilis,” agreeing with _Gesta_. This latter authority says (161) that Philip reached Acre on the twenty-second day of his voyage, viz. Saturday in Easter week, _i. e._, April 20. Rigord, 108, dates his arrival Easter Even (April 13).

[575] _Gesta_, 157.

[576] Cf. _ib._, 161, and _Est._, ll. 1135-40, 1153-9.

[577] _Gesta_, 162; _Est._, ll. 1186-90; _Itin._, 177; R. Diceto, ii. 91.

[578] One hundred “naves” and 14 “buccae,” R. Devizes, 17. This writer, it must be remembered, supposed the king to have joined his fleet at Marseille and coasted along with it thence to Messina, picking up more ships as he went; but as we have seen, this is an error.

[579] R. Diceto, ii. 86, makes it 219, viz. 156 “naves,” 24 “buccae,” and 39 “galeae”; the _Gesta_, 162, make it 203, being 150 “magnae naves” and 53 “galeae”; R. Devizes, 46, reckons the fleet at its leaving Messina as comprising 180 “naves,” “buccae,” and “dromundi” (thus tallying with R. Diceto), besides the “galeae” of which he does not state the number.

[580] Cf. the description of twelfth century _galeae_ in W. Tyr., lib. xiv. c. 20, with that in _Itin._, 80.

[581] R. Devizes, 17.

[582] R. Devizes, 46.

[583] _Est._, ll. 1179-85, 1200; _Itin._, 176, 177.

[584] “Devant siglot li reis meismes,” _Est._, l. 1259.

[585] _Itin._, 177.

[586] “Prés de Vïaires,” _Est._, l. 1216; probably, as M. Gaston Paris says, Cape Spartivento, the eastern point of Calabria.

[587] _Est._, ll. 1202-28.

[588] R. Devizes, 46.

[589] _Itin._, 178.

[590] _Est._, ll. 1233-60.

[591] _Ib._, ll. 1261-7.

[592] _Ib._, ll. 1268-1312.

[593] _Ib._, ll. 1377-1400.

[594] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 105, _Est._, ll. 1401, 1402, and _Itin._, 184, which alone gives the date.

[595] R. Devizes, 47.

[596] _Itin._, 184-7; cf. _Est._, ll. 1403-25.

[597] _Itin._, 187, 188.

[598] _Est._, ll. 1315-34, 1349-51.

[599] _Ib._, ll. 1449-72. Cf. _Itin._, 189. We need not trouble ourselves about the speeches in _Gesta_, 163, and R. Howden, ii. 106.

[600] _Est._, ll. 1479-95; _Itin._, 189. Cf. R. Howden, iii. 107.

[601] R. Devizes, 47.

[602] “Estions mis es bargettes Qui esteient mult petitettes” _Est._, ll. 1505, 1506.

[603] _Est._, ll. 1473-4, 1495-1564; _Itin._, 180-91.

[604] _Itin._, 191.

[605] _Est._, ll. 1565-1700; cf. _Itin._, 192-4, _Gesta_, 163, 164, and R. Howden, iii. 107, 108.

[606] _Est._, ll. 1335-45. Philip reached Acre April 13 according to Rigord, 108; Saturday in Easter week, April 20, according to _Gesta_, 161.

[607] “Rex ad omnia promptissimus, ne dicam praesumptuosissimus,” _Itin._, 195.

[608] _Ib._

[609] _Est._, ll. 1701-45; _Itin._, 195, 196.

[610] _Est._, ll. 1749-53, and _Itin._, 196, say Richard had now forty galleys, including the five Cypriotes.

[611] _Est._, ll. 1761-75, 1791-97; cf. _Itin._, 196, 197.

[612] _Itin._, 197, 198.

[613] _Est._, ll. 1777-90, 1813-18.

[614] Called “Ebetines” by Ambrose, _Est._, l. 1967.

[615] The later Deudamours, now Audimo, in the interior.

[616] See _Gestes des Chiprois_, 514.

[617] _Est._, ll. 1833-2056; cf. _Itin._, 199-203, _Gesta_, 166, and R. Howden, iii. 109-11.

[618] The “fifteen days” come from _Est._, ll. 2061-4, and _Itin._, 203. The _Gesta_, 167, and R. Howden, iii. 110, lengthen the campaign, placing Richard’s marriage, May 12, in the middle of it instead of before its beginning. They date Isaac’s surrender Whitsun Eve, June 1; the _Itin._, 203, makes it Friday, May 31.

[619] _Est._, ll. 2065-82.

[620] See the complaints of a contemporary Cypriote (Greek) writer, in _Itin._, introd. clxxxvi.

[621] _Gesta_, 168; cf. R. Howden, iii. 111, 112.

[622] _Est._, ll. 2067-8.

[623] _Gesta_, 167.

[624] _Est._, ll. 2101-5.

[625] _Ib._, ll. 2087, 2088; _Itin._, 204.

[626] _Est._, ll. 2089-92; _Itin._, _l.c._

[627] _Gesta_, 168; R. Howden, iii. 112. The latter absurdly says the queens with the Maid of Cyprus and the greater part of the fleet reached Acre on the day of Isaac’s submission, _i. e._, June 1. It is quite clear that the whole fleet, with king, queens, and all, sailed on June 5.

[628] R. Diceto, ii. 93.

[629] _Est._, ll. 2129-41; cf. _Itin._, 208.

[630] R. Devizes, 49.

[631] _Est._, ll. 2140-60.

[632] “Come si ço fust ovre de fee,” _Est._, l. 2162.

[633] _Est._, ll. 2185-275; cf. _Itin._, 205-9, and the brief accounts in _Gesta_, 168, 169, R. Howden, iii. 112, and R. Diceto, ii. 93, 94. R. Devizes, 94, absurdly says Richard had 1300 men drowned, “reservando ducentos.”

[634] _Est._, ll. 2142-9; _Itin._, 205; R. Diceto, ii. 93; Bohadin (_Recueil Hist. Croisades, Hist. Orientaux_, iii.), 220, 221.

[635] Bohadin, _l.c._

[636] _Est._, ll. 2165-84; _Itin._, 206. The brief accounts in _Gesta_ and R. Howden say nothing of the serpents; R. Diceto, _l.c._, mentions among the contents of the ship “serpentium ignitorum plena vasa plurima”; I have thought it right to adopt the interpretation of the “serpents” which these words imply, although a curious question seems to be suggested by comparing the story with an account in the _Morning Post_ of August 14, 1914, of a captured German liner whose cargo is there said to have included “about sixty alligators and reptiles.”

[637] Bohadin, 221.

[638] _Est._, ll. 2194-5.

[639] Bohadin, 221.

[640] _Est._, ll. 2305-8.

[641] _Gesta_, 168; R. Howden, iii. 112. These writers say Richard camped outside the city, and place the affair of the dromond on the next day, June 7. But the _Estoire_ distinctly locates the meeting with the dromond between Beyrout and Sidon. R. Diceto, ii. 94, dates it June 6, which is doubtless correct. Bohadin’s date, June 11 (p. 220), is impossible. Ambrose goes on to say that after the wind changed the king “jut devant Sor cil nuitie” (l. 2308); for which the _Itin._ has “proxima nocte ante Tyrum fixis anchoris classis persistebat” (p. 210).

[642] _Est._, ll. 2309-12.

[643] Ibn Djobeïr, _Recueil, Hist. Orientaux_, iii. 450.

[644] _Ib._

[645] See descriptions in Archer, _Crusade of Richard I_, 373, and _Crusades_, 317, 318.

[646] The _Est._, ll. 2753, 2754, says four hundred knights and seven thousand foot. The _Itin._, 61, says seven hundred knights, besides other fighting men, and that with these “non prorsus ad novem millia robur numeratum excrevit.”

[647] “Un samedi al seir,” _Est._, l. 2372; date from _Itin._, 211, R. Diceto, ii. 94, _Gesta_, 169.

[648] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” _Est._, l. 2310.

[649] _Est._, ll. 2312-24; cf. _Itin._, 210, 211.

[650] _Gesta_, 169; R. Howden, iii. 113.

[651] _Itin._, 211.

[652] _Est._, ll. 4575-88; _Itin._, 213, 214.

[653] R. Devizes, 50.

[654] _Gesta_, 170.

[655] R. Devizes, _l.c._

[656] _Est._, ll. 4610-16; _Itin._, 214, 215.

[657] R. Devizes, 50, 51.

[658] _Est._, ll. 4605-8; _Itin._, 214; cf. _Gesta_, 170, and see M. Gaston Paris’s remarks in his introduction to _Est._, p. lxxiii.

[659] _Est._, ll. 4609-88, _Itin._, 215, 216, Bohadin, 222. The dates are from Bohadin, whose narrative is by far the clearest; the western writers have confused the two assaults, and the date in the _Itinerarium_ is impossible.

[660] _Gesta_, 170; R. Howden, iii. 113.

[661] _Est._, l. 4808; _Itin._, 220.

[662] Bohadin, 222-4, 227, 228.

[663]

“Car nus reis n’iert mielz entechies Fors d’une teche qu’il aveit, Cele que _nul mal ne saveit_; Cele que l’em clame simplesse.” _Est._, ll. 9112-15.

[664] Ibn Alathir; _Recueil des Hist. des Croisades, Hist. Orient._, II, i. 58. Cf. Ernoul, _Chronique_, 181-3.

[665] “Vir Leviannigena,” R. Devizes, 52; the reference is evidently to Isaiah xxvii. 1.

[666] _Gesta_, 170. Bohadin, 225, gives the date of Conrad’s departure for Tyre as “Monday 30 Jomada 1.” As 30 Jomada 1 (_i. e._, June 25) that year was Tuesday, he must mean either Monday 24 or Tuesday 25.

[667] _Gesta_, 170, 171.

[668] _Itin._, 122.

[669] “Post multum vero temporis,” _Gesta_, 171; but as we have seen that Conrad went to Tyre on June 24 or 25, and we shall see that he was back again at Acre early in July, the writer must surely have meant “non multum.”

[670] _Gesta_, 171; R. Howden, iii. 114.

[671] See lists in _Est._, ll. 4705-35, and _Itin._, 217, 218.

[672] _Gesta_, 173; _Est._, ll. 4815-34, 4867-71; _Itin._, 222.

[673] _Gesta_, 173; R. Howden, iii. 117.

[674] Bohadin, 229, 230; _Est._, ll. 4841-63.

[675] _Gesta_, 174; Bohadin, 230.

[676] Bohadin, _l.c._

[677] According to one version, they implicitly refused it by requiring, in addition, other conditions such as the garrison had not power to accept without Saladin’s consent, which he was quite certain not to give; _Gesta_, _l.c._, followed by R. Howden, iii. 171. Cf. Bohadin, 233.

[678] Cf. Bohadin, 234, with _Gesta_, _l.c._

[679] _Est._, ll. 4927-42; cf. _Itin._, 224, 225.

[680] _Gesta_, 175; cf. _Est._, ll. 4943-7, and _Itin._, 225.

[681] _Est._, ll. 4948-5040; _Itin._, 225-8; date from _Gesta_, 174.

[682] _Gesta_, 175.

[683] “Le Balafré.”

[684] See the conflicting accounts in _Itin._, 229, _Gesta_, 175, and R. Howden, iii. 118, 119.

[685] Bohadin, 230, 235.

[686] See the various accounts of these negotiations in Bohadin, 235-7; Ibn Alathyr, _Recueil des Hist. des Crois., Hist. Orient._, II, i. 44-7; other Arab authorities collected in Abu Shama, _ib._, V, 22-5; _Gesta_ and R. Howden, _ll.cc._

[687] _Gesta_, 177, 178.

[688] _Ib._, 178.

[689] See Note II at end.

[690] _Itin._, 233.

[691] R. Devizes, 52.

[692] _Itin._, 233, 234. According to Bohadin, French ed. p. 238, this duty was entrusted to Conrad; the passage is omitted in the Leyden MS. edited by Schultens, but is reproduced in an emphatic form by Abu Shama (_Recueil, Hist. Orient._, V, 26).

[693] _Gesta_, 179, 180; _Itin._, 234.

[694] Bohadin, 237, 242; _Gesta_, 179. The _Estoire_, ll. 5217-19, says the Franks were to have as hostages “Les plus hauz Turs e les plus sages Que l’em poreit en Acre eslire,” and does not specify what was arranged as to the garrison. But from the sequel it is quite clear that the hostages really consisted of the whole body of the garrison.

[695] Bohadin, 238. Cf. Ibn Alathyr, 47.

[696] He had sent his baggage thither on the night of the 12th, Bohadin, 239; a fact which misled the author of the _Itinerarium_ (234) into saying that Saladin himself retired “eadem nocte sequenti proxima post ingressionem nostram.” The _Gesta_, 181, agrees with Bohadin in placing Saladin’s own removal on July 14.

[697] Bohadin, _l.c._

[698] _Ib._, 239, 240; cf. _Gesta_, 180.

[699] _Gesta_, 181, 182.

[700] _Ib._, 182. Cf. _Itin._, 234.

[701] See Note I at end.

[702] Otto of S. Blaise says of Richard: “Praeda communi universorum sudore adquisita inter suos tantum distributa reliquos privavit, in seque odia omnium concitavit. Omnibus enim fortiori militum robore praestabat, et ideo pro velle suo cuncta disponens reliquos principes parvipendebat” (Pertz, xx. 323). “Reliquos” seems here to include Philip. Even Rigord does not go so far as this. It is certain that Philip got his due share of the prisoners; and there is no reason to doubt that he also got, as the English writers say, his due share of the city and its contents.

[703] _Gesta_, 182, 183.

[704] _Ib._, 184; _Est._, ll. 5050-61; _Itin._, 235, 236.

[705] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[706] _Itin._, 236.

[707] _Gesta_, _l.c._; _Est._, ll. 5054, 5055.

[708] _Gesta_, _l.c._; _Est._, ll. 5056, 5057, 5062, 5063; _Itin._, 235. Geoffrey only “held” his fiefs in the sense that he was legally seised of them; they were Joppa, Caesarea, and Ascalon, all in the enemy’s hands. Conrad’s were Tyre, Sidon, and Beyrout.

[709] _Gesta_, 184.

[710] R. Diceto, ii. 95.

[711] _Est._, ll. 5305-28; _Itin._, 238; _Gesta_, _l.c._; in this last authority the clause about forty days’ notice after Richard’s return is omitted, and the date of the oath is given, July 29.

[712] _Gesta_, _l.c._

[713] Rigord, 118.

[714] _Est._, ll. 5333-4; _Itin._, 239; _Gesta_, 185. The latter make the date July 31; the _Itinerarium_ makes it August 1.

[715] Rigord, 117; date from R. Howden, iii. 126.

[716] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx, 323.

[717] _Gesta_, 185, 186.

[718] Bohadin, 238-40.

[719] _Gesta_, 180.

[720] _Itin._, 232.

[721] A certain number of the captive Christians of rank were to be chosen by name by the two kings. See Note II at end.

[722] Bohadin, 240.

[723] From 17 Jomada II (= July 12) to 18 Rajab.

[724] The writer of the _Gesta_, 187, gives the appointed day as August 9; no doubt imagining the “month” to mean four weeks.

[725] Rigord, 116.

[726] _Gesta_, 185. If the prisoners were really as numerous as our authorities represent, the whole of Philip’s share could hardly have gone, with him and his suite, in two galleys. Probably he took the picked ones only.

[727] _Ib._, 186, 187; _Est._, ll. 5414-86; _Itin._, 242, 243.

[728] _Gesta_, 187.

[729] Bohadin, 241, 242.

[730] The writer of the _Gesta_, 187, who gives the date for the original first term as August 9, says it was on that day postponed “in diem undecimum post illum.” It is, however, clear from Bohadin that the postponement cannot have been agreed upon till after the 11th; and it is equally clear from the sequel that the term as ultimately fixed cannot have been later than the 20th. This would be the fortieth day from the surrender—which is what the writer of the _Gesta_ asserts in p. 179 to have been the term originally fixed for payment of the whole ransom. Evidently he is correct in his implied date, and wrong only in his mode of arriving at it.

[731] _Gesta_, 188, 189. “Sui cum eo” in p. 189 must surely be an error for either “sui cum me,” or, much more probably, “mei cum eo.”

[732] The _Est._, ll. 5613-46. and _Itin._, 245, place Richard’s encampment outside the walls and the skirmish or skirmishes which followed it after the slaughter of the garrison, _i. e._ after August 20. But the whole narrative of the surrender of Acre and the proceedings there is in the _Gesta_ arranged with such minute chronological order that it can hardly fail to be founded on documentary authority so far as its dates are concerned, while the chronology of both _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_, just at this period, is vague and confused in the extreme.

[733] Bohadin, 242, 243; cf. _Gesta_, 189; R. Howden, iii. 127, 128; _Est._, ll. 5513-39; _Itin._, 243; R. Diceto, ii. 94; R. Devizes, 52. All the authorities, Bohadin included, who give a date at all make it Tuesday, August 20, except the _Itinerarium_, which unaccountably says “die Veneris proximo post Assumptionem Beatae Mariae,” _i. e._ Friday, August 16.

[734] Letter of Richard in R. Howden, iii. 131.

[735] Bohadin, 243. As to the way in which the Frank soldiers had treated the corpses, the statements in _Gesta_, 189 (copied in R. Howden, iii. 128) must be compared with Bohadin, _l.c._, whence it appears, first, that whatever was done to the bodies did not shock him, for he makes no comment on it; and secondly, that the Saracens who went to look at them next morning could quite well have taken them away then, if they had chosen to do so.

[736] Bohadin, 242.

[737] “Quibus sub hac conditione vita concessa est, si Saladinus pro redemptione eorum 70,000 bisantiorum dare vellet,” R. Coggeshall, 32. “Qui [Caracois et Mestocus] ... cum per interpretes deditionem urbis promitterent et capitum redemtionem, rex Anglorum volebat viribus vincere desperatos, volebat et victos pro redemtione corporum capita solvere, sed agente rege Francorum indulta est eis tantum vita cum indemnitate membrorum, si post deditionem civitatis et dationem omnium quae possidebant Crux Dominica redderetur.” R. Devizes, 51.

[738] _Gesta_, 179, followed by R. Howden, iii. 121.

[739] See the curious statement in a letter written about this time by El-Fadhel, one of Saladin’s secretaries, to the Divan at Bagdad: “The number of barbaric tongues among these people from the west is outrageous, and outdoes everything that can be imagined. Sometimes, when we take a prisoner, we can only communicate with him through a series of interpreters—one translates the Frank’s words to another, who translates them again to a third.” Abu Shama, _Hist. des Crois._, iv. 15.

[740] “Si fud la chose esguardee A un concile ou assemblerent Li halt home, qui esguarderent Que des Sarazins ocireient Le plus,” etc., _Est._, ll. 5524-7; cf. _Itin._, 243. The _Gesta_, 189, and R. Howden, iii. 128, say expressly that the duke of Burgundy caused the French king’s share of the prisoners to be slaughtered likewise.

[741] “E dont furent li cop vengie De quarels d’arbaleste a tor, Les granz merciz al Creator!” _Est._, ll. 5540-2; cf. _Itin._, _l.c._

[742] Extract from Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, _Hist. des Crois._, iv. 277, 278. It is probably to this that Bohadin alludes when he speaks of “reprisals” as one of the motives to which the massacre at Acre was attributed; and it is he who adds (p. 243) that it was also ascribed to Richard’s sense of the risk of leaving so many prisoners behind him. The story told in the _Gesta_, 189, and R. Howden, iii. 127, that Saladin had wantonly provoked the retaliation by beheading on August 18 all the Christian prisoners who should have been exchanged for his own men next day, is obviously a fiction; and it is clear that the leaders of the host were not even misled by a false report, for the _Estoire_ and the _Itinerarium_ make no mention of any such thing.

[743] _Est._, ll. 5543-5, _Itin._, 244.

[744] _Est._, ll. 5384-7; _Itin._, 240; cf. Bohadin, 244.

[745] _Gesta_, 190.

[746] _Est._, ll. 5550-65; _Itin._, 244.

[747] _Est._, l. 5675; _Itin._, 247, 248. This would include three hundred (or five hundred, R. Howden) Christian prisoners who were in Acre when it was surrendered. _Gesta_, 178; R. Howden, iii. 120.

[748] _Gesta_, 190; R. Howden, iii. 128. Bohadin, 244, gives the date of the departure, 29 Rajab (= Thursday, August 22).

[749] _Est._, ll. 5677-702; _Itin._, 248.

[750] _Est._, ll. 5704-14; _Itin._, _l.c._

[751] Bohadin, 244-6.

[752] This is the date given by the _Est._, ll. 5721-33, and _Itin._, 249. Bohadin (244), Ibn Alathyr (_Recueil_, II. ii. 48), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, _ib._, iv. 33) say 1 Jaban (= August 24). From this point to the Crusaders’ departure from Caesarea, I follow Bohadin’s reckoning for the movements of Saladin, on whom he was in attendance, and the reckoning of the two Frank chroniclers of the Crusade (the writers of _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_) for the movements of the host, of which one of them is universally acknowledged to have been a member, and I personally believe the other to have been so likewise. We shall find that from August 30 to September 6, 1191, Bohadin’s dates are confused; a like confusion may have affected them for the whole period from August 24, but of this we cannot be sure.

[753] _Est._, ll. 5751-95; _Itin._, 249-51; cf. Bohadin, 244-5.

[754] _Itin._, 251.

[755] _Est._, ll. 5800-60; _Itin._, 251-2.

[756] The difficulty is complicated by the contradictory descriptions of the site in _Est._, ll. 5889-90, and 5935, and in _Itin._, 253, 254. The present native name of Athlit is Khirbet Dustrey. One is tempted to suggest that “Destreitz” might be an attempt to reproduce the sound of, and give a meaning to, this native appellation; but as an Arabic scholar has been good enough to answer a question on the subject by informing me that “it is quite impossible to trace the word Dustrey” in that language, one is driven to conclude that the corruption has taken place in the opposite direction, and that “Dustrey” is a modern Arab form of the old French “Destreitz” (Latin “Districtum).”

[757] _Est._, ll. 5863-92, 5935-42; _Itin._, 253, 254.

[758] Bohadin, 245, 246.

[759] Its Arabic name is Nahr es Zerka, “blue” or “grey river.”

[760] Bohadin, 247-50.