Chapter II: Richard and France (5)

[761] _Est._, ll. 5981-4; _Itin._, 256.

[762] _Est._, ll. 5944-6004; _Itin._, 255-6. The date of the arrival of the host at Caesarea has to be made out by counting the days’ marches and halts, as given by these two writers, since the departure from Acre. A question arises whether Ambrose’s “deus jours de sejour” (l. 5936) at Casal des Destreitz means two whole days and three nights, _i. e._, August 27-30, or two nights and one whole day besides the day of arrival there, _i. e._, August 27-29. The word in the _Itinerarium_—“biduo”—does not help to a decision; but Bohadin does help, though indirectly. He says (250) the Franks reached Caesarea on “Friday 6 Jaban.” This date is self-contradictory; the 6 Jaban (= August 29) was Thursday, and from this point to 14 Jaban (= September 6) all Bohadin’s days of the week are one day in advance of his days of the month. On reaching the last date of the series, however, we shall find from other evidence that the day of the week, not that of the month, is the correct one all through; therefore the “two days” are to be taken in the widest sense, and the entry into Caesarea was on Friday, August 30.

[763] Bohadin, 250, 251; for the date, which he gives as 8 Jaban (= August 31), see preceding note. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, 34, gives it correctly, 9 Jaban = September 1.

[764] Bohadin, 251, 252.

[765] Bohadin, 253.

[766] _Est._, ll. 6039-46; _Itin._, 257.

[767] Bohadin, 255.

[768] _Est._, ll. 6047-64; _Itin._, 258. Oddly enough, Richard soon afterwards forgot the date of his own wound, for in a letter inserted in R. Howden, iii. 130, he says it occurred on the third day before Saladin’s defeat (at Arsuf), _i. e._ on September 5. We shall see that this date is impossible, because on September 5 there was no fighting at all.

[769] _Est._, ll. 6071-90; _Itin._, 258, 259.

[770] Bohadin, 255-7.

[771] _Est._, ll. 6092-111; _Itin._, 259. Bohadin, 257, describes the site as “a place called Birka” (the Pond, or Marsh), “whence the sea was visible.” It is probably one of the streamlets which, when not dried up or choked up with sand, run into the Nahr el Falik, a little creek about eight miles south of the mouth of the Salt River.

[772] _Est._, ll. 6114-17; _Itin._, _l.c._

[773] Bohadin, 258, calls it “Saturday 14 Jaban” (= September 6), but all the Frank writers show that the date of the battle was really Saturday September 7 = 15 Jaban.

[774] _Est._, ll. 6191-4, 6204-8; _Itin._, 261.

[775] Cf. Bohadin, 258, _Est._, l. 6211, and _Itin._, 262 and 274; the passage “Sicque et in parte ... fixere tentoria” in this latter page seems to be out of place, and to represent Bohadin’s words (_l.c._) “the foremost of the Frank footmen reached the gardens of Arsuf.”

[776] _Est._, ll. 6212-51; _Itin._, 262, 263.

[777] _Est._, ll. 6157-64; _Itin._, 260, 261.

[778] According to _Est._, ll. 6427-30, he was a “compainz” of Richard from England.

[779] _Est._, ll. 6255-472; _Itin._, 264-9.

[780] Bohadin, 258.

[781] _Est._, ll. 6475-92; cf. _Itin._, 269, 270.

[782] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6532-616, _Itin._, 273, 274, and Bohadin, 259-60.

[783] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6621-38, _Itin._, 274, 275, Richard’s letters in R. Howden, iii. 130-2, and Bohadin, 261. Other accounts of the battle are in _Gesta_, 191, and R. Howden, iii. 128, 129; both with a wrong date and some other obvious errors.

[784] Letter in R. Howden, _l.c._ 131.

[785] Bohadin, 261.

[786] _Ib._

[787] Cf. _Est._, ll. 6895-902, and _Itin._, 281, with Bohadin, 261.

[788] _Est._, ll. 6683-734, 6903-25; _Itin._, 276, 277, 281, 282; Bohadin, 261-2—the last again with wrong days of the month.

[789] _Est._, ll. 6925-35; _Itin._, 281, 282.

[790] Bohadin, 262, gives the date of Saladin’s arrival at Ramlah as 17 Jaban (= Monday, September 9); Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, _Recueil_, v. 40) makes it 19 Jaban (= September 11).

[791] Bohadin, 263; cf. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, v. 40-1, 43.

[792] Bohadin, 263-7. He says (266) that he heard one of the men engaged in the demolition tell Saladin that they had dug through a wall “a spear’s length” in thickness. What was the length of a Saracen spear?

[793] Bohadin, 265, says 20 Shaban = September 12; but probably he is a day behind as usual.

[794] _Ib._, 265, 266.

[795] _Est._, ll. 6941-7034; cf. _Itin._, 283.

[796] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 130.

[797] Bohadin, 267.

[798] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 132.

[799] The salutation of the letter is merely “N. dilecto et fideli suo,” without any name.

[800] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 131, 132.

[801] _Est._, ll. 7038-58.

[802] _Ib._, ll. 7051-60; _Itin._, 285. For locality see note in index to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Seint Abacuc.”

[803] _Est._, ll. 7061-6; _Itin._, _l.c._

[804] Bohadin, 270.

[805] Natroun is the form used by Bohadin; but Quatremère, _Hist. des Sultans Mamelouks de l’Egypte_, t. ii, I^{ère} partie, p. 256, no. 10, says, “La forme la plus régulière de ce nom est Alatroun,” and quotes a MS. Arabic geographical lexicon which gives the name thus. It is better known in the corrupt form Latroun. The place seems to be identical with a ruined castle which the Christian inhabitants of the land told early pilgrims was the abode of the Penitent Thief. This raises a question whether the story was derived from Alatroun by way of _Latroun_ and _latro_, or _latro_ gave rise to Alatroun. Quatremère inclines to the latter view.

[806] Bohadin, 270, 271.

[807] On October 13; Bohadin, 273.

[808] _Est._, ll. 7067-82; _Itin._, 286.

[809] Cf. _Est._, ll. 7075-7, with Bohadin, 279, who says some Frankish ships with, “it was said,” five hundred men on board were captured by the Turkish fleet on October 26.

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

[811] _Est._, ll. 7083-175; _Itin._, 286-8.

[812] Bohadin, 274, 275.

[813] Bohadin, 277-80.

[814] _Itin._, 289.

[815] _Est._, ll. 7207-32; _Itin._, 290.

[816] “Car si a vos mescheiet E qui issi fust escheiet, Cristente sereit tuee,” _Est._, ll. 7341-3.

[817] _Est._, ll. 7233-66; _Itin._, 291-4.

[818] Bohadin, 284, 285.

[819] _Ib._, 286.

[820] _Ib._

[821] _Itin._, 296.

[822] Bohadin, _l.c._; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 53.

[823] Ibn Alathyr, _l.c._

[824] Bohadin, 286, 287.

[825] In the French edition of Bohadin the date is given as “le 11 Chouwal,” _i. e._ November 1. But evidently this is impossible; it must mean 21 Shawal = November 11.

[826] Bohadin, 287-91. The accounts of these negotiations given in _Est._, ll. 7370-428, and _Itin._, 295-7, are obviously less trustworthy.

[827] Bohadin, 292, says he went to Tell el Jezer, _i. e._ “the Hill of the Bridge,” Stubbs, note 1 to _Itin._, 298; possibly a bridge over the little river that runs through the Wady Ali, between Natroun and Amwas. The Frank chroniclers say he went “dreit al Toron as Chevalers,” _i. e._ Natroun, _Est._, ll. 7456-62; “versus Darum,” _Itin._, 298. Stubbs in a note suggested that “Darum” here was a phonetic error for “Toron”; this the _Estoire_ practically proves; and I venture to think the passage furnishes a little bit of evidence on another question, for if the Latin “translator” had “al Toron as Chevalers” before his eyes, how came he to misrender it “versus Darum”? whereas if Ambrose found “Darum” in his friend’s notes, and noticed that it was a mistake, he would of course correct it in his own version of the story.

[828] See Note III at end.

[829] _Est._, ll. 7429-41; cf. _Itin._, 297.

[830] _Est._, ll. 7471-6; cf. _Itin._, 298.

[831] _Est._, ll. 7477-8; _Itin._, 299, “verum non in deliciis.”

[832] Bohadin, 292.

[833] The later high road to Jerusalem from Joppa goes by Ramlah, but not by Amwas and Beit Nuba; it passes further south, through the Wady Ali.

[834] _Itin._, 305.

[835] See, _e. g._, the story of the fight in which the Earl of Leicester was nearly lost, _Est._, ll. 7480-604, _Itin._, 300-3.

[836] See Note IV at end.

[837] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 17, with Ibn Alathyr, 54, who makes the day December 22, while Roger makes it the 23rd.

[838] Abu Shama, _Recueil_, V., 49; seemingly from “récit du Cadi,” _i. e._ Bohadin, but the passage does not occur in either the French or the Dutch edition of Bohadin’s work.

[839] _Est._, ll. 7617-25; cf. _Itin._, 303.

[840] “E li Turc qui bien conisseient Le rei Richart e sa baniere E sa vistece e sa maniere,” Est., ll. 7738-40. For “e sa baniere” the _Itin._, 307, has “_ex_ ejus imminente baneria.” Probably _e_ in l. 7739 should be _a_.

[841] _Est._, ll. 7717-60; _Itin._, 306, 307. On the localities mentioned in this incident see Note IV at end.

[842] _Est._, ll. 7627-704; cf. _Itin._, 305.

[843] _Est._, ll. 7705-16; cf. _Itin._, 305, 306.

[844] Place from R. Howden, iii. 179, who gives the date as S. Hilary’s Day, January 13. The _Est._, _l.c._, and _Itin._, 308, say merely that it was after Epiphany.

[845] _Est._, ll. 7761-80; _Itin._, _l.c._

[846] Ibn Alathyr, _Recueil Hist. Orient._, II. i. 55, 56. The comments on the difficulties in the way of an effective blockade which he ascribes to Richard are almost verbally identical with those of the Knights as reported in _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_.

[847] Ibn Alathyr, _l.c._, 55; _Est._, ll. 7841-2; _Itin._, 310. The exact date of the retirement is questionable, owing to the doubt as to the date of the council. Ibn Alathyr (_l.c._) says the host withdrew from Beit Nuba on 20 Dulheggia = January 8; Abu Shama (_Recueil_, V. 49) quotes from “_Récit du Cadi_” a statement that the withdrawal was on 22 Dulheggia (= January 10), but there is no such thing in the printed editions of Bohadin. Perhaps Ibn Alathyr and Roger of Howden may have erred in different ways from making one and the same mistake, viz., assuming that the return to Ramlah took place on the same day as the council, which is not necessarily implied in any of the chronicles, Frank or Mussulman.

[848] _Est._, ll. 7799-810; _Itin._, 309.

[849] _Est._, ll. 7811-42; _Itin._, 310.

[850] Otherwise called Yabneh, Jafna, in older days Jamnia, and, earlier still, Jabneel (Joshua xv. 2).

[851] _Est._, ll. 7843-95; _Itin._, 311, 312. Both these writers say the host spent a night at Ibelin on its way to Ascalon. Imad-ed-Din (_apud_ Abu Shama, 51) says “the Franks marched upon Ascalon on 3 Moharrem,” _i. e._ January 20, the date given in _Itin._, 312, as that of the arrival there. I venture to think that the difficulty suggested by Stubbs (_Itin._, _l.c._, note 2), as to reconciling these dates with the statement in _Itin._, 311, that the duke of Burgundy stayed eight days at the Casal des Plains, is an imaginary one. Those eight days need not be crowded in before the setting out of the rest of the host; the two parties may have gone in opposite directions almost at the same time, since we shall find that they did not come together again until several weeks later.

[852] _Est._ ll. 7967-8077; _Itin._, 315-17.

[853] “Ipse manibus aedificando,” _Itin._, 317. We shall presently find an unimpeachable eye-witness testifying to having seen the king performing a no less arduous manual labour at Darum.

[854] Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 50.

[855] See William of Tyre’s description of Darum: “Castrum in Idumaea (ipsa est Edom) situm, trans torrentem illum qui dicitur Ægypti, qui etiam terminus est Palestinae et praedictae regionis,” lib. xx. c. 19. The earlier frontier—like the later one—was further to the south-west, and the “river of Egypt” then was the Wady el Arish, or, earlier still, another stream yet further westward.

[856] _Est._, ll. 8092-141; cf. _Itin._, 318, 319.

[857] _Est._, ll. 8143-54; _Itin._, 319, 320.

[858] _Est._, ll. 5329-50; _Itin._, 239. R. Coggeshall, 37, says 30,000 bezants.

[859] _Est._, ll. 8160-77; _Itin._, 320, 321.

[860] _Est._, ll. 8177-224; _Itin._, 321, 322.

[861] _Est._, 8225-34; _Itin._, 322, 323. The latter gives the date: “Rex ... postquam Achon pervenerat in crastino Cinerum, postera die,” etc. The morrow of Ash Wednesday 1192 was February 20.

[862] _Est._, ll. 8238-46; _Itin._, 323.

[863] The _Estoire_, ll. 8247-60, has in this passage a hiatus which has to be supplied from _Itin._, 323, 324.

[864] _Itin._, 324; cf. _Est._, ll. 8265-70, where again there is a hiatus.

[865] This is the version of Richard’s proceedings given by Bohadin, 293, who was with Saladin at Jerusalem all the time.

[866] Bohadin, 292, 293.

[867] _Ib._, 293, 294.

[868] _Itin._, 325.

[869] Bohadin, 294.

[870] The _Itin._, 324, says he left Acre on the Tuesday before Easter, _i. e._, March 31.

[871] _Est._, ll. 8325-35; _Itin._, 326.

[872] “De ses Peitevins E de Mansels e de Angevins E des barons de Normandie,” _Est._, ll. 8336-9; of Templars and Hospitaliers, with Count Henry “and many others,” _Itin._, _l.c._

[873] _Est._, ll. 8340-52; _Itin._, 326, 327.

[874] _Est._, ll. 8429-42; _Itin._, 329, 330.

[875] _Est._, ll. 8287-304; _Itin._, 325.

[876] Bohadin, 293. He reckons the captured sheep at a thousand.

[877] _Itin._, 330.

[878] “Post Pascha completum,” _i. e._, after April 12; _Itin._, 333.

[879] _Est._, ll. 8519-646; _Itin._, 333-5.

[880] _Est._, ll. 8650-6, 8715-66; _Itin._, 336, 338.

[881] Bohadin, 297; R. Diceto, ii. 104. Roger of Howden, iii. 181, gives the date as April 27.

[882] Bohadin, 297; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 53.

[883] Bohadin, _l.c._

[884] _Est._, ll. 8879-99; _Itin._, 341; R. Coggeshall, 35.

[885] Ibn Alathyr, 58.

[886] _Est._, ll. 8788-814; _Itin._, 339-41.

[887] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._; R. Howden, iii. 181.

[888] “Encore ne fu çou mie voirs,” Ernoul, 290.

[889] _Livre d’Eracle, Rec. Hist. Croisades, Hist. Occid._, ii. 190-3. William of Newburgh, lib. v. c. 16, and Roger of Wendover, ed. Coxe, iii. 74, 75, give a letter purporting to have been written by the “Old Man” to exculpate Richard from the charge of having contrived Conrad’s death. In William’s version the letter is addressed “principibus et omni populo Christianae religionis,” and professes to have been written spontaneously; in Roger’s version it is addressed to Duke Leopold of Austria, and Roger says (though the letter itself does not say) that it was written at the request of Richard during his imprisonment in Germany. William says, “Has [literas] nimirum se vidisse atque legisse vir fide dignus mihi protestatus est cum regi Francorum Parisius constituto solemniter fuissent oblatae”; he adds that Philip formally accepted the document as proof of Richard’s innocence; and he dates this transaction 1195. The contents of the letter differ slightly in the two versions, but both are substantially in agreement with the accounts in Ernoul and Eracle of the circumstances which led to Conrad’s death. The letter is unquestionably a forgery. It may have been circulated in the East as well as in the West, and the “ultramarine” chroniclers may have taken their story from it; there is, however, also a possibility that both they and the composers of the letter—whoever these may have been—all alike derived their information from a genuine source.

[890] “Li baron de France esteient En lor tentes hors de la vile, Que haut que bas, plus que dis mile; E li haut ensemble parlerent E a la marchise manderent Qu’ele lor rendist la citie Trestut en peis e en quitie En guarde a l’oes le reis de France; E el respondi sanz dotance Que quant li reis la revendreit Que mult volenters li rendreit, Si ainz n’i ad autre seignor.” _Est._, ll. 8912-23. For the last four lines the _Itinerarium_ (342) has: “Quibus ipsa respondit quod quando rex Ricardus ipsam visere veniret, ipsi potius redderet civitatem et nulli alii, sicut dominus suus moriens ei praeciperat.” The context in _Estoire_ clearly shows that by “li reis” in l. 8921 Ambrose meant not Richard but Philip; and it seems most likely that this version is the correct one, although Ambrose, as well as the Latin chronicler, has previously stated that Conrad when dying had bidden Isabel “que la citie ne rendist Fors al cors le rei d’Engleterre Ou al dreit seignor de la terre” (ll. 8858-64)—“ut civitati Tyro conservandae vigilanter intenderet, nec cuiquam hominum resignaret nisi regi Ricardo sive illi quem regnum jure contingebat haereditario,” _Itin._, 340. Whom Conrad can have meant by the last seven words (if indeed he really spoke them) is a puzzle of which I can suggest no solution.

[891] _Est._, ll. 8774-7; _Itin._, 338.

[892] _Est._, ll. 8928-50, 8973-9016; _Itin._, 342, 343, 346, 347.

[893] _Est._, ll. 9021-62; _Itin._, 348, 349. The date of the wedding is given by R. Diceto, ii. 104.

[894] _Est._, ll. 8961-70; _Itin._, 343.

[895] _Itin._, 299.

[896] _Ib._, 344, 345.

[897] _Ib._, 343, 346.

[898] _Est._, ll. 8956-9.

[899] _Est._, ll. 9127-45; _Itin._, 351.

[900] Bohadin, 295, 296, 298.

[901] The _Est._, ll. 9323-4, and _Itin._, 355, however, mention some Genoese and Pisans as taking part in the final storming.

[902] The authorities say merely “un diemaine,” _Est._, l. 9175; “quadam dominica,” _Itin._, 352; but we shall see later that it must have been May 17.

[903] _Est._, ll. 9173-240; _Itin._, 352-4.

[904] Bohadin, 301.

[905] Bohadin’s version (_l.c._) of this is that they asked for time to communicate with Saladin.

[906] _Est._, ll. 9174-368; _Itin._, 354-6; cf. Bohadin, 301. This last, Ibn Alathyr (60), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, 54), date the surrender May 23; as it seems to have been made late in the evening, and the Mohammedan day begins at sunset, this date really agrees with that given by the western writers.

[907] We hear nothing of a taking of Gaza; but Gaza had long ceased to be a place of any military importance. Richard and his companions passed through it on their way back to Ascalon (_Est._, l. 9389, _Itin._, 356), so its Moslem garrison, if it had had one, had evidently been withdrawn.

[908] _Est._, ll. 8369-86; _Itin._, _l.c._

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

[910] _Est._, ll. 9387-94; _Itin._, 356, 357.

[911] Cf. _Est._, ll. 9395-407, and _Itin._, 357, 358. For Cassaba, see G. Paris, note in Glossary to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Canoie as Estornels.”

[912] _Est._, ll. 9408-32; _Itin._, 358.

[913] The first version is Bohadin’s, 301, 302; the second, that of Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 54. Bohadin calls the castle Mejdel Yaba; in Abu Shama’s compilation the name appears as Mejdel Djenab, but the compiler adds: “This is the name given by El Imad in the _Book of the Conquest_, but in _The Lightning_ we find ‘Mejdel Yaba’”; while the text of Imad-ed-Din published by Count Landsberg has “Mejdel el Habab” (footnote to Abu Shama, _l.c._). Of these Arabic names only one has been located—Mejdel Yaba, called by the Franks Mirabel, which is so far from the Wady el Hesy that it cannot possibly be the place meant (G. Paris, Glossary to _Estoire_, _s.v._ “Fiier”). I am indebted to a distinguished Arabic scholar for the information that Mejdel Yaba means “Glory of Yaba,” Mejdel Djenab “Glory of the district,” Mejdel el Habab “Glory of the lover”; and that the Arabic for Castle of Figs or Figtrees would be Kalat-el-Tinat. It is possible that a place bearing one of the three former Arabic names might be called Fig or Figtree Castle by the Franks for some reason quite independent of its native appellation, and that the narratives of the Christian and Moslem writers may be only two different versions of one event; but there is also another possibility. Imad-ed-Din dates the disaster of the Franks at Mejdel Djenab (or Yaba, or El Habab) 14 Jomada I, _i. e._ May 28, the date given by Ambrose and the _Itinerarium_ for the capture of Figtree Castle; but Bohadin says it occurred “when the host had spent the fourteenth day of Jomada I” at El Hesy. This should apparently mean that it took place on the following day, _i. e._ 15 Jomada I = May 29. To me it seems more probable that this version is the correct one, and that the Frank and the Moslem writers are here relating two distinct events, one of which took place on May 28 and the other on May 29. If so, it would not be unnatural that of two expeditions made within such a short period, each party should record only the one which terminated in their own favour.

[914] _Est._, ll. 9433-508; _Itin._, 358-61.

[915] “E dist a sei: S’or ne retornes, Veirement as terre perdue.” _Est._, ll. 9464-5.

[916] Lib. xiv. c. 22.

[917] “Ço fu en juin” (“intrante jam mense Junio,” _Itin._) “Lors s’esmut l’ost de la Canoie Par mi les plains tut contre val Vers Ybelin de l’Ospital, Joste Ebron,” _Est._, ll. 9509-14; _Itin._, 360. Bohadin places this movement a little earlier; after mentioning an event which he dates 17 Jomada I (= May 31) he continues “The enemy meanwhile had moved from El Hesy, and was at the diverging-point of the ways of which one leads to Ascalon, one to Beit Djibrin, another to the tents of Islam” (303). Stubbs (note to _Itin._, 360) suggests Galatia, in Arabic Keratieh, as the place indicated. As Bohadin frequently antedates by a day or two the movements of the Franks, he may have done so in this instance. “El Hesy” here, as in a later passage, seems to stand for the Wady el Hesy as a whole; thus including of course the Canebrake.

[918] _Est._, ll. 9519-52; _Itin._, 361.

[919] _Est._, ll. 9553-680; cf. _Itin._, 361-4. On one passage, omitted in my summary of William’s speech, one would like to have more light. “Remembre te de l’aventure De la riche descomfiture E de Haltfort que rescussis, Que li cuens de Seint Gile assis Aveit, que tu desbaretas E vileinement l’en jetas” (ll. 9609-14). The editors of Bertrand de Born and of the _Estoire_ know nothing of the event here alluded to, and there seems to be no mention of it elsewhere and no clue to its date.

[920] _Est._, ll. 9681-90. The last line is: “Devant les barons d’Escalone.” _Barons_ here is nonsense. G. Paris suggests “bailles,” a possible equivalent for the Latin, “extra pomoeria Ascaloniae foris,” _Itin._, 365.

[921] _Est._, ll. 9692-720; _Itin._, _l.c._, giving the date, June 4.

[922] Bohadin, 299, 300.

[923] _Ib._, 303.

[924] _Est._, ll. 9817-21; _Itin._, 369.

[925] Bohadin, 310.

[926] _Est._, ll. 9813-17; _Itin._, _l.c._

[927] _Est._, ll. 9748-88; _Itin._, 367. “A close Pentecoste, mien escient le samedi,” says Ambrose, l. 9748; the _Itinerarium_ says “Die Dominica, scilicet in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis”; but Bohadin, 303, says 23 Jomada I, which agrees with Ambrose. The French translation of Bohadin has erroneously “8 juin.”

[928] _Est._, ll. 9797-802; Bohadin, 304.

[929] _Itin._, 368; Bohadin, _l.c._

[930] _Est._, ll. 9806-10; _Itin._, _l.c._

[931] _Est._, ll. 9809-13; _Itin._, 368, 369. Bohadin, 304, says the Franks left Natroun and advanced to Beit Nuba on Wednesday, 27 Jomada I; _i. e._ June 10.

[932] Bohadin, 304, 305.

[933] Bohadin, 305. The French translation gives the date as “le 19 de Jomada premier,” which would be June 2. Possibly “19” is a misprint for “29.”

[934] _Est._, ll. 9835-64; _Itin._, 359.

[935] Cf. _Est._, ll. 9885-922, and _Itin._, 371, 372.

[936] _Est._, ll. 9947-10088; Bohadin, _l.c._; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55; all with date June 16; _Itin._, 373, with date June 17.

[937] _Est._, ll. 10140-210; _Itin._, 379-81.

[938] _Est._, ll. 10213-59; _Itin._, 381, 382.

[939] Bohadin, 306.

[940] Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55, says Saladin heard on 9 Jomada II (= Monday, June 22) that the Franks had set out in the night. Ambrose (l. 10304) says merely “Sunday.”

[941] _Est._, ll. 10265-312; _Itin._, 383-5; cf. Bohadin, 306.

[942] Bohadin, 306, 307; cf. Imad-ed-Din, 55, _Est._, ll. 10313-23, and _Itin._, 385.

[943] Bohadin, 307.

[944] Among the Saracens, according to Bohadin (_l.c._), it was reported that one of this second party of scouts was Richard himself, who, disguised as an Arab, made a circuit of the Egyptians’ encampment and then, having found them all sound asleep, rode back and called up his men. Such a thing is by no means impossible; but if it were a fact, it would probably have been known to the Franks, whereas it was evidently not known even as a rumour to Ambrose, who would surely have made the most of it in his poetic story.

[945] Bohadin, 306, 307.

[946] _Itin._, 385-7; cf. _Est._, ll. 10329-421.

[947] Bohadin, 307, 308.

[948] Cf. Bohadin, 308, 309, with _Est._, ll. 10435-511, and _Itin._, 387-90.

[949] _Est._, ll. 10512-64; _Itin._, 390, 391.

[950] Bohadin, 309. He calls the day “Tuesday, 11th of Jomada II”; but as 11 Jomada II in that year was a Wednesday, it is doubtful whether he means Tuesday 10 (= June 23) or Wednesday 11 (= June 24). The former is almost certainly the true date. Roger of Howden, iii. 182, says the affair occurred “on the eve of S. John”; Imad-ed-Din, _apud_ Abu Shama, 55, says the Frank army set out on the night preceding June 22; the _Estoire_, l. 10304, says it set out “un seir de diemaine,” which thus seems to have been Sunday June 21; and both _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ clearly indicate that the fight took place on the second morning after. Imad-ed-Din, _l.c._, locates it at “El Hesy”; but we cannot possibly set aside the plain and unanimous testimony of Bohadin and the Frank writers as to Kuweilfeh. The Franks do not mention El Hesy at all on this occasion; Bohadin makes it clear that both parties passed through that locality on their way. It seems plain also that in this case, as in an earlier one, “El Hesy” stands not for the village now so called, but for the Wady, and more especially for its western end, or head. In one place the actual phrase used is “the source of El Hesy” (“la source d’El Hasy,” French edition of Bohadin, _l.c._; “caput El Hissi,” Schultens’ edition, 232).

[951] Bohadin, 311-15.

[952] Cf. Bohadin, 309, _Est._, ll. 10565-75, and _Itin._, 392. Bohadin says they got back to their camp on “Friday, 16 Jomada II,” which is self-contradictory, as 16 Jomada II (= June 26) that year was Monday. He may have meant either Monday June 26 or Friday 30; he may even have meant both, and confused them together. The indications in _Estoire_ and _Itinerarium_ are vague, but they seem to imply a two days’ journey from the Round Cistern to Ramlah; thus Ramlah may have been reached on the 26th and the “camp” proper, at Beit Nuba, on the 30th. Richard seems not to have gone to Beit Nuba at all, but to his former quarters at Castle Arnold; R. Coggeshall, 40.

[953] _Est._, ll. 10576-626; _Itin._, 393, 394.

[954] _Est._, ll. 10639-64; _Itin._, 394, 395.

[955] R. Coggeshall, 39, 40. Ralf says Richard caused Saladin’s captured envoys to be shot to death with arrows by his own servants in the sight of the host, neither portion of it (that is, his own adherents or those of Burgundy) knowing whence the victims came nor why they were thus slain. It seems hardly possible that Ambrose should have omitted to mention so strange an incident if it really was seen by the Crusaders of whom he was one. Ralf further represents Hugh as setting out for Acre with his forces immediately, and Richard with the rest of the host following next day; whereas Ambrose distinctly says that the French quitted Beit Nuba at the same time as the king (_Est._, ll. 10709-10). The _Itinerarium_, 397, says the same.

[956] Bohadin, 315.

[957] “Quatre liues,” _Est._, l. 10690; “quatuor tantum nunc distabant millia,” _Itin._, 396. Beit Nuba is about thirteen miles from Jerusalem. Seemingly “liues” and “millia” here must stand for hours of march, as Stubbs says they often do in Crusade history.

[958] _Itin._, 376. This passage follows the account of an event which the same writer dates June 17, and other authorities June 16.

[959] “Par la Porte David estoit la voie qui maine en Belleem. Em mi voie estoit une Esglyze ou Seint Elie fu mananz,” _Contin. W. Tyr._, MS. Rothelin, _Recueil Hist. Occid._, ii. 512. R. Howden, iii. 182, calls the place “capellam S. Elyae quae distat a Jerusalem per tres leucas.” As the distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is about six miles, Roger must here have used the word _leuca_ as equivalent to a mile (as the author of the _Itinerarium_ seems to have done frequently). On the other hand, there appears to be a mistake in the passage from the Rothelin MS.; seeing that “David’s Gate” was the west gate of Jerusalem, and that Bethlehem lies south of that city, the natural “way that leads to Bethlehem” would be by the “Gate of Sion.”

[960] _Est._, ll. 10089-135; _Itin._, 377, 378. Both writers give the date as “the third day before S. John’s,” and the Latin one adds “die S. Albani,” _i. e._ June 22. On June 22, however, Richard was, as we have seen, at Galatia. Roger of Howden’s account of the affair (iii. 182) is obviously confused. He gives no date; but in his work, as in the _Estoire_ and the _Itinerarium_, the story is immediately followed by that of the Egyptian caravan. Probably therefore the true date is Sunday, June 21.

[961] R. Coggeshall, 40, 41.

[962] Joinville, c. 108.

[963] Bohadin, 315; _Est._, ll. 10704-5.

[964] Bohadin, 316.

[965] Bohadin, 316-22; obviously more authentic than the version in _Est._, ll. 10747-63, and _Itin._, 398, 399.

[966] _Est._, ll. 10706-14; _Itin._, 397, giving the date.

[967] _Est._, ll. 10768-85; _Itin._, 399-401. The date of leaving Joppa comes from Bohadin, 322, that of the arrival at Acre from _Itin._, 400-1.

[968] _Est._, ll. 10935-55; _Itin._, 403-4. (The dates will appear from the sequel.) The former writer seems to imply, and the latter distinctly states, that Richard had really and avowedly called his ships together for the purpose of sailing at once for Europe, the attack on Beyrout being intended as a mere incident on the way. I cannot believe this view of the matter to be based on anything else than an erroneous impression current among the lower ranks of the host. Richard may very likely have hoped that the capture of Beyrout would lead to fresh overtures for peace on the part of the Moslems, and to such concessions from them as might enable him to make a treaty which would end the war for a time, and thus set him honourably free to depart before the date which he had fixed; he may have made preparations for such a contingency, and if so, he would no doubt make them openly because a possibility of their purpose being misconstrued could hardly occur to his mind. Richard might break a treaty or a contract without scruple, and also without appreciable damage to his reputation in his own day; but a sudden desertion of the Holy Land such as these writers supposed him to have contemplated would have been a flagrant breach of what he and every other man of the world of chivalry held far more sacred than any treaty or contract—his knightly word, solemnly and publicly pledged only a few weeks before. Such an act must infallibly have brought upon him, in his own eyes and in the eyes of all true knights, a double share of the “shame and everlasting contempt” which he had once denounced against Philip Augustus, and would be utterly irreconcileable with his whole character. The Beyrout project seems really to have been much more definite and important than we should gather from the casual way in which it is mentioned by the two Frank chroniclers. It had evidently been planned in concert with the other leaders before Richard left Joppa, since as early as July 22—five days before the king reached Acre—Saladin had learned from his spies that “the Franks were moving on Beyrout”; Bohadin, 322.

[969] Bohadin, 322, 323; dates, which he gives in his usual self-contradictory fashion, corrected by help of _Est._, ll. 10807-10, and _Itin._, 400, 401.

[970] Cf. Bohadin, 327, 328, _Itin._, 401-3, and _Est._, ll. 10815-25.

[971] _Est._, ll. 10910, 10911.

[972] Both _Estoire_, ll. 10957-63, and _Itinerarium_, 404, say the messengers reported that Joppa was already taken and the garrison shut up in the citadel; but the sequel shows that they reached Acre on the date given above, July 28, three days before matters had come to this pass.

[973] _Est._, ll. 10968-76; _Itin._, 504. Cf. R. Coggeshall, 41, 42.

[974] Cf. _Itin._, 404, 405, _Est._, ll. 10979-11037, and R. Coggeshall, 42. The _Estoire_ (ll. 11033-7) says they lay off Joppa “tote la nuit del _samedi_”; which can be correct only if Ambrose has here fallen, as some of the Frank chroniclers of the Crusade seem to have occasionally done, into the eastern way of reckoning days, from evening to evening.

[975] _Est._, ll. 10021-4.

[976] Bohadin, 328-31.

[977] _Itin._, 405, 406; cf. _Est._, ll. 11040-54.

[978] Bohadin, 331, 332.

[979] Cf. Bohadin, 332, with _Itin._, 407, 408, and _Est._, ll. 11079-11113.

[980] _Est._, ll. 11114-26.

[981] Bohadin, 333.

[982] _Itin._, 407, 408; _Est._, ll. 11127-53; Bohadin, 332; R. Coggeshall, 43.

[983] Bohadin, 333.

[984] _Est._, ll. 11154-8; _Itin._, 408.

[985] _Itin._, 410, 411; _Est._, ll. 11164-238; cf. Bohadin, 333.

[986] R. Coggeshall, 43.

[987] Cf. the French translation of Bohadin, 334, with the Latin in Schultens’s edition, 252: “Cognitamque meam in bello operam praestabo.”

[988] Bohadin, 333-5. He dates the negotiations “evening of Saturday 19 Rajab” and the removal to Ramlah “Sunday 20 Rajab.” Saturday was really 20 Rajab = August 1. Here, as usual with eastern writers, “evening” stands for “eve,” _i. e._ the “vigil” or evening _before_.

[989] _Ib._, 335.

[990] _Itin._, 412; Est., ll. 11295-9.

[991] _Itin._, 413; Est., ll. 11318-27.

[992] Bohadin, 336; cf. R. Coggeshall, 44.

[993] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 44, 45, _Itin._, 414, 415, and _Est._, ll. 11379-407.

[994] R. Coggeshall, 44, cf. _Itin._, 420. The latter writer puts the episode of the Saracens re-occupying the town and Richard re-taking it at the end of his narrative of the fight, _i. e._ after the victory outside the walls; but as he introduces it with “Interea,” we cannot be sure where in the order of events he really meant to place it; and as R. Coggeshall’s information is derived from Hugh de Neville, who was in close attendance on the king during the fight, his narrative is probably correct.

[995] See details of the array in _Itin._, 416.

[996] R. Coggeshall, 44, 45; cf. _Itin._, _l.c._

[997] “Ferme quinquaginta milites,” _Itin._, 413; “milites octoginta,” R. Coggeshall, 50.

[998] The _Itin._, 413, says fifteen, but R. Coggeshall, 46, says six horses and one mule. Bohadin—after remarking “I was not there, thank God!”—says some who were there told him the Christian knights numbered only nine, or at most seventeen (337); he, or his informants, doubtless reckoned as “knights” only those who were horsed. According to the _Itin._, 420, Richard gained two more horses, as soon as he entered the town, by killing their Turkish riders.

[999] “Un hardi serjant e nobile, Henri le Tyois, el conroi Portoit la baniere le roi,” _Est._, ll. 11432-4. “Serviens probissimus Hernicus Teutonicus, regis signifer,” _Itin._, 415. “Rex ... assumptis secum sex strenuis militibus cum regio vexillo,” R. Coggeshall, 55.

[1000] _Itin._, 420. This writer reduces the king’s mounted followers at this time to two, which of course is absurd.

[1001] R. Coggeshall, 46.

[1002] _Itin._, 420, 421.

[1003] _Ib._, 417.

[1004] R. Coggeshall, 47.

[1005] _Ib._; cf. _Itin._, 416, 417, and Bohadin, 337.

[1006] R. Coggeshall, 48.

[1007] _Ib._; cf. _Itin._, 417.

[1008] Bohadin, 337; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 64.

[1009] Ibn Alathyr, 65.

[1010] Bohadin, 337.

[1011] R. Coggeshall, 49.

[1012] _Itin._, 418; cf. _Est._, ll. 11510-32.

[1013] R. Coggeshall, 49-51.

[1014] _Itin._, 423.

[1015] Bohadin, 338.

[1016] _Itin._, 412. This seems to have been a not uncommon practice of the Turks.

[1017] _Ib._, 425; R. Coggeshall, 51.

[1018] Bohadin, 336.

[1019] “Saturday, 26 Rajab” says Bohadin, 338, but 26 Rajab was a Friday.

[1020] Bohadin, 338, 339.

[1021] Bohadin, 339-41.

[1022] _Est._, ll. 11725-49; _Itin._, 425-7.

[1023] _Itin._, 427; cf. R. Devizes, 75.

[1024] _Est._, ll. 11750-60; _Itin._, _l.c._

[1025] Bohadin, 341, 342.

[1026] “Houat,” Bohadin, 342. Stubbs, in a note to _Itin._, 428, suggests this identification, which is rendered highly probable by the mention in R. Devizes, 69, of Hubert as concerned in the making of the truce.

[1027] Bohadin, 342-4.

[1028] Bohadin, 344.

[1029] _Ib._, 344-6. He says the truce was for three years and eight months from Wednesday 22 Shaban = October 1. Ibn Alathyr (_Recueil_, II. i. 65) says three years and eight months from September 1; Imad-ed-Din (_apud_ Abu Shama, 78) says three years and three months, without any date; R. Diceto, ii. 305, and W. Newburgh, lib. iv. c. 29, make the period three years, three months, three weeks, three days and three hours from Easter 1193. Bohadin is unquestionably the best authority on the matter, especially as the final proposals on the Moslem side appear to have been actually written either by his own hand, or by the hand of the writer—whoever this may have been—who made the revised edition of his work, published with a Latin translation by Dr. Schultens at Leyden; so at least we gather from Schultens, 259—“_Conscripsi_ quae convenerant, _exaravique_ conditiones pacis.” The French version, which represents Bohadin’s original text, has merely “_On_ rédigea,” etc.; so we are left in doubt whether the first person in the Leyden version represents Bohadin himself or his reviser.

Richard of Devizes (69-77) has a long and curious account of the circumstances relating to the truce. According to him, the first overtures were made and the preliminaries arranged by Hubert of Salisbury and Henry of Champagne without the knowledge of King Richard, and the matter was only referred to the king when it was so far advanced that, sick and bewildered as he was, he could do nothing but leave it in their hands and sanction their arrangements. This in itself is not impossible, nor is it irreconcileable with Bohadin’s narrative; but there are in Richard’s story details which are certainly incorrect—_e. g._, he makes Hubert and Henry apply to Safadin instead of Bedr-ed-Din, and introduces visits of Safadin in person to the camp at Joppa and to the king himself, all of which are unquestionably fictitious or imaginary.

[1030] _Est._, ll. 11801-26; _Itin._, 429, 430.

[1031] Bohadin, 348.

[1032] _Ib._, 349, 350; _Est._, ll. 11868-75; _Itin._, 432.

[1033] R. Devizes, 78.

[1034] Bohadin, 350.

[1035] _Est._, ll. 11835-8; _Itin._, 430.

[1036] _Est._, ll. 12257-70; _Itin._, 440.

[1037] _Itin._, 441; cf. _Est._, ll. 12271-2.

[1038] Rigord, 118.

[1039] Rigord (_l.c._), says “secundo vendidit”; R. Howden, iii. 306, when recording Guy’s death in 1195, says “cui Rex Angliae vendiderat insulam Cypri.” But Roger himself says elsewhere (181), that when Henry was chosen King of Jerusalem “rex Angliae dedit in excambium regi Guidoni insulam de Cypre in vita sua tenendam.” Ralf of Coggeshall, who also (36) places the transaction after Henry’s election in April 1192, says, “Regi Guidoni concessit, accepto ejus homagio”; and W. Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 29) says, “mera liberalitate donavit.” The version given by all these latter writers can hardly fail to be the correct one; it is inconceivable that Guy could have had means for the purchase.

[1040] This in an inference from Rigord, 118, who seems to place the whole transaction at this time.

[1041] R. Diceto, ii. 106; _Itin._, 441.

[1042] _Ll.cc_; R. Howden, iii. 185, says October 8.

[1043] Bohadin, 348.

[1044] _Eracle, Recueil, Hist. Occid._, ii. 189.

[1045] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.

[1046] R. Coggeshall, 53.

[1047] _Ann. Colon. Max._, Pertz, xvii. 796; cf. Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115 (Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli). “Allein die Glaubwürdigkeit dieser Zeugnisse unterliegt gegründeten Bedenken”; Kellner, _Ueber die deutsche Gefangenschaft Richards I_, 44.

[1048] “Applicuit in insula de Cuverfu, et navigavit usque ad tres galeas quas vidit ex opposito in Rumania,” R. Howden, iii. 185. Roger dates the arrival at Corfu, “infra mensem post diem illum,” _i. e._ the day on which Richard left Acre, October 9. R. Coggeshall, whose information, being partly derived from the chaplain Anselm who accompanied the king on his voyage, is probably more accurate, says (53) that Richard had been six weeks at sea when he turned back to Corfu; so the date would be about November 20. According to the same writer (_l.c._) the pirate galleys numbered two, not three as Roger says.

[1049] Twenty-one according to R. Howden, _l.c._ One of the party was Anselm, who told the story to R. Coggeshall, _l.c._

[1050] R. Howden, _l.c._

[1051] Document, dated 1598, from the archives of Ragusa, “ex lib. Div. Cancellariae n. 98,” in Farlati, _Illyricum Sacrum_, vi. 90.

[1052] Appendini, _Notizie istorico-critiche sulle antichita, etc., di Ragusa_, i. 272; Farlati, vi. 90.

[1053] “It is not Great Britain who will fail in keeping her promises. Great Britain has known us ever since Richard received our hospitality and built for us a most beautiful church on the spot where our ancestors had saved him from shipwreck on his way back from the Crusade,” said M. Vesnitch, the representative of Serbia, at a great public meeting in Paris on January 27, 1916.

[1054] None of the authorities for Richard’s voyage mention more than one landing after his departure from Corfu. “Accidit ut ventus, rupta nave sua in qua ipse erat, duceret eam versus partes Histriae, ad locum qui est inter Aquileiam et Venetiam, ubi rex Dei permissione passus naufragium cum paucis evasit,” says the Emperor in a letter to Philip of France (R. Howden, iii. 195). Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky, 114; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.) says, “Ad Polam, civitatem Ystriae, ad litus fertur et applicare cogitur.” R. Diceto (ii. 106) makes the voyage end “in Sclavonia”; R. Coggeshall (54), “in partes Sclavoniae, ad quandam villam nomine Gazaram”; R. Howden (iii. 105) “prope Gazere apud Raguse.” This word _Gazere_, misunderstood as intended to represent Zara, has puzzled commentators, but is explained by Wilkinson (_Dalmatia and Montenegro_, i. 301) as being a corruption of an Arabic word meaning “island”; that is, it really stands here for Lacroma. The final landing was evidently not anywhere in “Slavonic parts” but in Istria, as the German authorities say; and of these the Emperor is the most likely to be correct.

[1055] The narrative which we are here following—that of Richard’s chaplain and companion Anselm, as reported by R. Coggeshall, 53-5—calls this personage merely “Dominus provinciae illius, qui nepos extitit Marchisii.” That he was the Count of Gorizia appears from the Emperor’s letter in R. Howden, iii. 195.

[1056] R. Coggeshall, 54, 55.

[1057] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.

[1058] It comprised, besides Baldwin de Béthune and the king, “Magister Philippus regis clericus, atque Anselmus capellanus qui haec omnia nobis ut vidit et audivit retulit, et quidam fratres Templi,” R. Coggeshall, 54; and also, as appears later (_ib._, 55), some personal attendants of Richard’s.

[1059] Letter of Henry VI, in R. Howden, iii. 195.

[1060] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 104; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.

[1061] Letter of Henry VI, _l.c._

[1062] R. Coggeshall, 55. The name of the town, Freisach, and that of the German lord, Frederic of Pettau, are not given by Ralf; they are supplied from the Emperor’s letter, _l.c._ Ralf makes the final halting-place and the scene of the capture Vienna itself: “ad quandam villam nomine Ginanam in Austria prope Danubium”; but the German accounts, including that of the Emperor, which must have been derived from Leopold of Austria, make it a neighbouring village: “juxta Wenam in villa viciniori, in domo despecta,” letter in R. Howden, _l.c._; “in quoddam diversorium juxta Viennam civitatem,” Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 334); “circa Wiennam ... in vili hospitio,” Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky, 114, R. Howden, iii. cxl). Kellner (_Gefangenschaft Richards I_, 29), calls the place “Erdberg, Dörfchen bei Wien”; but I can find no authority for the name. Trivet, to whom he seems to refer for it, says “in civitate Wienna” (ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 148).

[1063] R. Coggeshall, 56. R. Howden, iii, 186, says Richard was captured asleep; according to Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 324), he was roasting meat on a spit, thinking by this servile employment to avoid recognition, and was betrayed by a splendid ring which he had forgotten to remove from his finger. This account of the matter has a somewhat characteristic air; but it may have been founded on a confused version of Ralf’s story of the ring offered to Mainard of Gorizia. W. Newburgh’s narrative of Richard’s adventures (lib. iv. c. 31) seems to be based on the Emperor’s letter, which says nothing about the circumstances of the capture; the details and speeches added by William are obviously mere rhetoric of his own. The date is given by R. Coggeshall as December 21, by R. Diceto (ii. 106) as December 22.

[1064] _Ann. Marbac._, Pertz, xvii. 165; Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 112; R. Howden, iii., introd. cxl.

[1065] R. Coggeshall, 56.

[1066] Letter in R. Howden, iii, 195.

[1067] _Ann. Magn. Reichensberg._, Pertz, xvii. 520.

[1068] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115; R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.

[1069] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.

[1070] Agreement in Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115-19, and Stubbs’s R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.-iii.

[1071] Kellner, _Gefangenschaft_, 39.

[1072] Rigord, 116; _Gesta Ric._, 192-9, 203, 204, 227-30.

[1073] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 78; for date see Kellner, 18, note 2. Milan does not appear in Philip’s itinerary in _Gesta Ric._, unless in the form of “Cassem Milan” (230), and this identification is doubtful, as the name comes between “Monte Bardon” and “Furnos,” _i. e._ Farinovo. Some of the other names, however, seem to be out of geographical order.

[1074] This probably referred to Richard’s dealings with Saladin.

[1075] R. Howden, iii. 198, 199; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33. The date of the assembly is from R. Diceto, ii. 106. The place was probably Spire; Richard was there on Easter day and on the Tuesday in Easter week (March 28 and 30), _Epp. Cantuar._, 362-4. The statement of the Emperor’s poetical panegyrist, Peter of Eboli, that Richard offered to clear himself by ordeal of battle, a proposal by which Henry was so greatly impressed in his favour that he set him at liberty (_Petr. Ansolini de Ebulo Carmen_, _apud_ Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Scriptt._ xxxi. 142), is probably a misunderstanding or a poetical embellishment of Richard’s offer to stand to right in the court of his French overlord.

[1076] R. Diceto, ii. 106, 107.

[1077] Stubbs, note to R. Howden, iii. 210.

[1078] R. Coggeshall, 58. Ralf says Richard was imprisoned “primo _Treviris_, deinde Warmatiae.” _Treviris_ here seems to mean Triffels, as there is no other indication that Richard was ever at Treves; we shall see that he was at Worms later. Ralf is perhaps the best authority as to the character of Richard’s imprisonment, as he probably heard about it from Anselm the chaplain, who may very likely have been, for a time at least, one of the attendants imprisoned with their sovereign. William of Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 37, lib. v. c. 31) is less to be trusted on the subject. Two German chroniclers say that Richard was kept “sub honorabili custodia” (_Ann. Aquicinct._, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, xviii. 456), “in libera clausus custodia” (_Andr. Marchian._, _ib._ 557); but the chief German historian of the time, Otto of S. Blaise, says “Henricus [regem] Wormatiam asportari vinctum ferroque onustum praecepit” (Pertz, xx. 324).

[1079] R. Howden, iii. 197, a letter which shows that Savaric was at the Imperial court before February 28.

[1080] _Récits d’un ménéstrel de Reims_, 41-4.

[1081] R. Howden, iii. 198.

[1082] _Ib._, iii. 194.

[1083] _Gesta_, 230, 236.

[1084] _Ib._, 236. The actual “treaty of Messina” is not extant; all we know about it is from Philip’s charter, dated March 1190 (_i. e._ before March 25, 1191, the French year beginning on Lady Day), proclaiming certain conditions on which he and Richard had made “a firm peace.” This charter, in its existing form, contains no mention of either Eu or Aumale, nor of any conditions about the restitution of Aloysia or of her dower-lands. No original copy of it is known; it is printed in _Fœdera_, I. i. 54 from a fragment of an English Treasury Roll dating from the second half of the thirteenth century. Powicke, _Loss of Normandy_, 126, 127.

[1085] _Gesta_, 236, 237.

[1086] R. Howden, iii. 204.

[1087] _Ib._, iii. 205.

[1088] “Imperator vero iratum animum ac ferocem erga regem diutius conservans nullatenus eum in praesentia sua convocare vel alloqui voluit.” R. Coggeshall, 58.

[1089] R. Coggeshall, 58.

[1090] French version in Leroux de Lincy, _Recueil de Chansons Historiques_, i. 56-9, and Sismondi, _Literature of S. Europe_, trans. Roscoe, i. 152 _et seq._; Provençal version in Raynouard, _Choix de Poésies des Troubadours_, iv. 183 _et seq._

[1091] _I. e._ Philip of France.

[1092] “Mes compaignons cui j’amoie e cui j’aim, Ces dou Cahiul” (“Chacu,” Sismondi) “e ces dou Porcherain” (“Percherain,” Sismondi). Leroux de Lincy translates “Ceux de Cahors et ceux du Perche.” Feeling doubtful about the identification, I have tried to turn the difficulty by using a vague phrase and omitting the names altogether.

[1093] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33.

[1094] Gerv. Cant., i. 517.

[1095] He landed in England on April 20; _ib._, 516.

[1096] “Honeste circa ipsum Imperatorem moram facimus.”

[1097] Letter of Richard, in R. Howden, iii. 209, 210.

[1098] R. Howden, iii. 206.

[1099] Rigord, 123.

[1100] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 206; R. Coggeshall, 61, 62; Rigord, 123, 125, 126; _Chron. Rothomag., Rev. Gall. Scriptt._, xvii. 358; _Ann. Aquicinct_, _ib._, xviii. 546. The dates are conflicting, and Rigord’s chronology, in particular, is even more confused than usual just here; the other writers, especially the English ones, are safer guides.

[1101] “Misit nuncios ad Imperatorem cum infinita pecunia, rogans attentius regem Angliae utpote hominem suum ei mitteret liberum, vel diutius retineret incarceratum.” Gerv. Cant., i. 516.

[1102] Richard was there on May 26 and June 8; _Epp. Cant._, 364, 365; cf. Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.

[1103] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 37, says 24th; R. Howden, iii. 212, says 25th.

[1104] R. Howden, iii. 214; date, June, _Vita Alb. Leod._, Pertz, xxv. 168.

[1105] “Totius Alemanniae generalis conventus magnates solos comprehendens,” says R. Diceto, ii. 110, who dates it July 5; but R. Howden, _l.c._, is obviously more accurate.

[1106] William Brewer and Baldwin de Béthune. These latter arrived on June 28; R. Howden, _l.c._

[1107] R. Howden, iii. 214, 215.

[1108] R. Howden, iii. 215, 216.

[1109] John—whose restoration, however, was conditional; see R. Howden, iii. 217, 218;—the count of Angoulême, who in 1192-3 had stirred up another revolt in Aquitaine, invaded Poitou, and been made prisoner by its seneschal; see _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192, and R. Howden, iii. 194;—and the counts of Perche and Meulan, who had supported John’s intrigues in Normandy.

[1110] Treaty in R. Howden, iii. 217-20.

[1111] Letters in R. Howden, iii. 226, 227.

[1112] _Ib._, 229.

[1113] R. Howden, iii. 228-32.

[1114] Letter of Archbishop Walter of Rouen in R. Diceto, ii. 112, 113.

[1115] R. Howden, iii. 233.

[1116] See Note V at end.

[1117] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 113.

[1118] R. Howden, iii. 233, 234.

[1119] R. Howden, iii. 234; cf. Gislebert of Mons, Pertz’s small edition, 250. The duke of Suabia was the emperor’s brother; the marquis of Montferrat was Boniface, brother and successor to Conrad. To the duke of Louvain Richard also granted the lands in England which had belonged to count Matthew of Boulogne, father of the duke’s wife, “ipsique duci contra comitem Flandriae et Hanoniae et marchisum Namurcensi auxilium promisit, ita quod saltem tantum comiti Flandriae et Hanoniae guerram facerent quod comes nequaquam domino regi Franciae auxilium ferre posset” (Gislebert, _l.c._). The Flemish chronicler adds: “Conventiones tamen eorum in nulla parte fuerunt observatae; nec mirum, cum rex Angliae nemini unquam vel fidem vel pactum servasset, nec omnes illi nominati cum quibus foedus firmaverat conventiones suas observare consuevissent” (_ib._, 250, 251). This is rather too sweeping, in view of the conduct of the allies in after-years. One of them at least, Boniface of Montferrat, received three hundred marks “de feodo suo” and ten marks as a present from Richard in 1197 (Stapleton, _Norman Exchequer Rolls_, ii. 301).

[1120] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 41.

[1121] R. Howden, iii. 235.

[1122] R. Coggeshall, 62.

[1123] “Circa horam tertiam recessit a portu de Swine, et in crastino post horam diei nonam applicuit in Angliam apud Sandicum portum, diei dominica tertio idus Martii”; _i. e._ he left Swine on Saturday March 12, and reached Sandwich on Sunday the 13th, R. Howden, iii. 235. R. Diceto, ii. 114, makes it a week later, Sunday March 20; but that this is wrong is clear from Gervase of Canterbury, i. 524, where we are told that Richard was received at Canterbury on the 13th, having landed at Sandwich on the 12th. Ralf of Coggeshall, 62, says he landed “secunda hora diei,” on the Sunday after S. Gregory’s day, _i. e._ on March 13.

[1124] R. Diceto, ii. 114; cf. R. Coggeshall, 63.

[1125] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.

[1126] R. Coggeshall, 63.

[1127] It was seemingly on the march to Nottingham that, according to a marginal note in two MSS. of Ralf of Coggeshall, “Robertus Brito a rege captus, jussit ut fame in carcere interiret” (63). I have failed to discover who this man was, or what he had done to incur such a doom.

[1128] R. Howden, iii. 237-9.

[1129] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.

[1130] R. Howden, iii. 239.

[1131] _Hist. G. le. Mar._, ll. 10236-64.

[1132] R. Howden, iii. 240; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 114.

[1133] R. Coggeshall, 63.

[1134] R. Howden, iii. 240, 241.