Chapter II: Richard and France (6)

[1135] For details see R. Howden, _l.c._, 241.

[1136] _Ib._

[1137] R. Howden, iii. 242, 243, 245.

[1138] _Ib._, 247, 248.

[1139] “Ut regnum innovaret.” Gerv. Cant., i. 524.

[1140] Gerv. Cant., i. 524, 525.

[1141] _Ib._, 524-6; cf. R. Howden, iii. 247, 248.

[1142] Gerv. Cant., 525.

[1143] “Tantaque solemnitas facta est _propter praecedentis captionis contumeliam_,” _ib._, 526, “In octavis Paschae Wintoniae regni diademate fulgidus, _detersa captivitatis ignominia_, quasi rex novus apparuit,” W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42. “Rex Ricardus ... consilio procerum suorum, _licet aliquantulum_ renitens, coronatus est,” R. Coggeshall, 64. It is hard to conceive what “ignominy” or “contumely” could be thought to attach to the mere fact of Richard’s captivity, or why Richard should have been “reluctant” to revive a time-honoured custom which would surely have appealed with double force to his well-known love of pomp and splendour and of grand Church services, unless its revival was urged upon him for some special reason whose cogency he was unwilling to admit. On the other hand, it is curious that R. Diceto (ii. 114) says nothing about this crown-wearing beyond the bare statement that the king “in octavis Paschae regni diadema suscepit de manibus Huberti Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi.”

[1144] R. Howden, iii. 249, 250.

[1145] R. Howden, iii. 251. R. Diceto, ii. 114, and Gerv. Cant., i. 527, give the same date.

[1146] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10431-52.

[1147] Cf. Rigord, 127, R. Diceto, ii. 115, with date Whitsun Eve (May 27), and R. Howden, iii. 252.

[1148] Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10,353-518, R. Howden, Rigord, _ll.cc._, and R. Diceto, ii. 115, 116.

[1149] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 10491-550.

[1150] _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192; under this year all the events of 1192-5 are lumped together in this Chronicle.

[1151] R. Howden, iii. 252.

[1152] R. Diceto, ii. 116.

[1153] _Ib._, ii. 117; R. Howden and _Chron. S. Alb._, _ll.cc._

[1154] R. Howden, iii. 252, 253.

[1155] Rigord, 127; _Chron. Turon._, a. 1194, with date June 11. This spoliation was only temporary; on November 11 of the same year Richard, at Alençon, restored into the hands of the legate all that he had taken from the canons and other clerks of S. Martin at Tours. R. Diceto, ii. 122.

[1156] R. Diceto, ii. 117; R. Howden, iii. 252.

[1157] R. Diceto, _l.c._

[1158] _Ib._; R. Howden, _l.c._, giving date; _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192.

[1159] R. Howden, iii. 253; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 116.

[1160] R. Howden, iii. 253, 254; cf. Rigord, 127, who gives the date, June 14.

[1161] R. Howden, iii. 254, 255.

[1162] Cf. _ib._, iii. 255, 256; R. Diceto, ii. 117; W. Newb., lib. v. c. 2; Rigord, 129, and _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192. William the Breton’s description of the captured documents (_Philippis_, lib. iv. ll. 530-68) is surely a poetical exaggeration. The date is from R. Diceto, who says the affair took place thirty-seven days after Philip’s retirement from Verneuil.

[1163] R. Howden, iii. 256.

[1164] Peter was made seneschal between February 12 and May 5, 1190; see Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 263-5.

[1165] _Chron. S. Alb._, a. 1192.

[1166] Elias V, 1166-1204.

[1167] R. Howden, iii. 194; cf. R. Devizes, 55.

[1168] Teulet, _Layettes du Trésor des Chartes_, i. 176.

[1169] R. Diceto, ii. 117.

[1170] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 257. Cf. W. Newb., lib. v. c. 2.

[1171] R. Diceto, ii. 118, 119.

[1172] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 257-60.

[1173] See Note VI at end.

[1174] The ordinance concerning tourneys; dated “apud Villam Episcopi,” _Fœdera_, I. i. 65.

[1175] R. Howden, iii. 259.

[1176] Madox, _Hist. Exchequer_, i. 637, 638.

[1177] See Note VI at end.

[1178] R. Diceto, ii. 119.

[1179] R. Howden, iii. 267.

[1180] _Fœdera_, I. i. 65; also in Appendix to Preface to R. Diceto, ii. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.

[1181] R. Howden, iii. 288-90.

[1182] W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17.

[1183] R. Howden, iii. 290.

[1184] R. Howden, iii. 276.

[1185] R. Diceto, ii. 121.

[1186] R. Howden, iii. 283. Roger places the story “eodem anno” between two events of which one is dated January and the other February 1195.

[1187] R. Howden, iii. 300, 301.

[1188] _Ib._, 302, 303.

[1189] R. Howden, iii. 301; W. Newb., lib. v. c. 15; cf. Rigord, 130, 131. The two latter give the date “mense Julio.”

[1190] _Fœdera_, I. i. 66.

[1191] R. Howden, iii. 303, 304.

[1192] _Ib._, iii. 304.

[1193] Rigord, 131. Arques had been in Philip’s hands since July 1193, when it was pledged to him and placed under the control of the archbishop of Reims by the treaty which William of Ely made during Richard’s captivity.

[1194] _Ib._; R. Howden, iii. 304.

[1195] Rigord, 131, 132.

[1196] R. Howden, iii. 305.

[1197] Rigord, 132.

[1198] W. Newb., lib. v. c. 15.

[1199] R. Howden, _l.c._; cf. W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17.

[1200] W. Newb., _l.c._

[1201] Rigord, 132.

[1202] Cf. Rigord, 132, 133, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 17, and R. Howden, iii. 305. The last-named gives the date of the meeting at Issoudun as December 9; Rigord and William make it December 5, and are confirmed by Delisle’s _Catal. des Actes de Ph. Aug._, nos. 462-464.

[1203] Treaty in _Fœdera_, I. i. 66; cf. R. Howden, iv. 3, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 18, Rigord, 133, and Delisle, _Catal._, nos. 463, 464.

[1204] R. Howden, iv. 3, 4.

[1205] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 135-137; cf. R. Howden, _l.c._

[1206] Letter in Appendix to Preface to R. Diceto, ii. lxxix., lxxx.; dated April 15. The context shows the year to be 1196.

[1207] R. Howden, iv. 7.

[1208] Cf. R. Howden, _l.c._ Gerv. Cant., i. 532, and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 18.

[1209] R. Howden and Gerv. Cant., _ll.cc._

[1210] W. Armor. _Philippis_, lib. v. vv. 147-60.

[1211] W. Newb. and R. Howden, _ll.cc._; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 161-65.

[1212] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 74-96; cf. Rigord, 135, who dates the latter event “brevi temporis elapso spatio” after an event which occurred in June.

[1213] R. Howden, iv. 4, 5.

[1214] Rigord, 135, 136; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 168-242, 254-69. There is documentary evidence of Philip’s presence at Aumale in July 1196; Delisle, _Catal._, no. 502. Gervase of Canterbury, i. 532, has confused the chronology.

[1215] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. v. 269.

[1216] Cf. _Mag. Vita S. Hugonis_, 248-51, and R. Howden, iv. 40.

[1217] Letter of Walter in R. Diceto, ii. 149, 150; cf. R. Howden, iv. 14, W. Newb., lib. v. c. 28, R. Coggeshall, 70, and Gerv. Cant., i. 544.

[1218] “Precipitans sevus alta de rupe deorsum Littore Sequanio, muros ubi _postea_ rupis Gaillarde struxit,” W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 311-13. This dates the story 1196-7.

[1219] Such is the story as told by Philip’s poet-historiographer, W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 276-324. Roger of Howden, iv. 54, tells it in less detail under the year 1198, without specifying its occasion; according to him Philip was the originator of this “novum genus grassandi in populo,” “and thus provoked the king of England, though unwilling, to a like impious act.”

[1220] R. Howden, iv. 18, 19; cf. letters of Walter and Richard in R. Diceto, ii. 153-8.

[1221] Letter in _Fœdera_, I. i. 71, dated “apud Bellum Castellum de Rupe,” July 11, 1198.

[1222] J. Brompton, Twysden, _X. Scriptt._, col. 1276.

[1223] Delisle, _Catal._, nos. 497, 499.

[1224] Rigord, 137; _Fœdera_, I., i. 67, 68.

[1225] R. Howden, iv. 19.

[1226] R. Howden, iv. 7.

[1227] _Ib._, 13.

[1228] D’Achéry, _Spicilegium_, vii. 343; cf. Vaissète, _Hist. de Languedoc_ (new ed.), vi. 173, 179.

[1229] R. Diceto, ii. 152, giving date April 15; cf. R. Howden, iv. 19 and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 31.

[1230] R. Diceto, _l.c._, R. Howden iv. 16, Gerv. Cant. i. 544, W. Newb., _l.c._ The first two give the day, May 19; Roger makes the year 1196, but the other three all distinctly place the event in 1197.

[1231] R. Howden, iv. 20.

[1232] Cf. _ib._, iv. 20 and W. Newb., lib. v. c. 32. Gerv. Cant., _l.c._ gives the date of Philip’s release “post Assumptionem B. Mariae.”

[1233] Gervase, i. 544, who alone mentions Hubert, dates the conference September 8; R. Howden, iv. 20, 21, dates it September 17. The former makes the truce start from Christmas, the latter (p. 24) from S. Hilary’s day (1198). This second version seems to be the one implied by W. Newb., lib. v. c. 32, who says that “mense Septembri” the kings made “treuiam unius anni et quatuor mensium.”

[1234] “Ita tamen ut qui tenet teneat donec de medio fiat,” says Gervase, _l.c._

[1235] R. Howden, iv. 21.

[1236] Gerv. Cant., _l.c._

[1237] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 25.

[1238] Charter, dated October 16, 1197, in R. Diceto, ii. 153-6.

[1239] Letter of Celestine, in Magn. Reichersp., Pertz., xvii. 524.

[1240] R. Howden, iv. 37.

[1241] _Ib._, 31.

[1242] Gerv. Cant., i. 545.

[1243] R. Howden, iv. 37, 38.

[1244] R. Diceto, ii. 163.

[1245] Gerv. Cant., i. 545.

[1246] Delisle, _Catal._, no. 535; cf. Rigord, 143.

[1247] R. Howden, iv. 55.

[1248] _Ib._, 59.

[1249] _Ib._, 54.

[1250] R. Howden, iv. 55; R. Diceto, ii. 163, giving date.

[1251] Cf. Richard’s letter, dated Dangu, September 30, in R. Howden, iv. 58, 59, with Roger’s own account, _ib._, 55, 56, 59, 60, R. Diceto, ii. 164, and Rigord, 141, 142.

[1252] Letter in R. Howden, iv. 58, 59.

[1253] “Saviez qu’à Chinon Non a argent ni denier.” Leroux de Lincy, _Rec. de Chansons Historiques_, i. 65-7.

[1254] R. Howden, iv. 66; R. Coggeshall, 93; _Ann. Waverley_, a. 1198; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, ii. 451.

[1255] Wyon, _Great Seals_, 19. The last known grant under the old seal is dated April 1, 1198; _ib._, 149.

[1256] The last confirmation is dated April 5, 1199; Round, _Feudal England_, 542.

[1257] R. Howden, iv. 60; cf. Rigord, 142.

[1258] R. Howden, iv. 78. The latter place was afterwards called Le Goulet.

[1259] “In costamento campionum Regis qui fuerunt ducti in Insulam de Andeleia contra Regem Francie xxx libras.” Roll of A.D. 1198, _Rot. Scacc. Norm._, ii. 481.

[1260] R. Howden, iv. 61, 68.

[1261] _Ib._, 80; Rigord, 144; letters of Innocent in _Fœdera_, I, i. 73. See also the long account of this last conference in _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 11399-726.

[1262] Rigord, _l.c._

[1263] R. Howden, iv. 80, 81.

[1264] Richard, _Comtes de Poitou_, ii. 259.

[1265] Otto seems to have occasionally styled himself duke of Aquitaine but never in his uncle’s presence. Richard, _Comtes_, ii, 300, 301, 312, 313.

[1266] _Ib._, 300, 301.

[1267] R. Howden, iii. 308.

[1268] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 94, and _Mag. Vita S. Hugonis_, 280.

[1269] Cf. Rigord’s description, 144, with the story of the discovery in W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 492-9. I suppose _census_ in l. 498—“Census absconsos in arato repperit agro”—stands for coins. As to the figures and the “table,” M. Richard (_Comtes_, ii. 322 note) suggests that the treasure was a gilded shield—the “table” being the central knob or _umbo_, with the figures arranged round it—buried for safety in the time of the Bagaudes or of the Barbarian invasion, and that Châlus was chosen as a safe hiding-place because “Châlus, c’est le _castrum luci_, le château du luc, autrement dit du bois sacré.”

[1270] Of La Boissière, according to G. Guiart, _Branche des Royaux Lignages_, l. 2601.

[1271] Cf. W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 499-508; Rigord, _l.c._; and R. Howden, iv. 82, 83.

[1272] R. Howden, iv. 82.

[1273] Cf. _ib._, with R. Coggeshall, 94, and W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 509-12. Gervase of Canterbury, i. 593, calls the place “Nantrun”; a mistake which is explained by a “Fragmentum aliunde assutum” to the chronicle of Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, _Thesaur._, ii. 342, where we are told that Richard while lying sick before Châlus sent some of his troops to besiege two other castles in the Limousin, Nontron and Montagut.

[1274] Rigord, _l.c._

[1275] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 513-19.

[1276] Addition to Geoff. Vigeois, 342. W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v., v. 529, says there were six knights and nine “clientes.”

[1277] R. Coggeshall, 94, 95.

[1278] R. Howden, iv. 82.

[1279] R. Coggeshall, 95.

[1280] W. Arm., _Phil._, lib. v, vv. 572-6; cf. R. Howden, iv. 82.

[1281] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._; cf. R. Howden, _l.c._; Gerv. Cant., i. 592, and W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. v. 589.

[1282] R. Howden, iv. 82.

[1283] R. Coggeshall, 95; cf. R. Howden, iv. 83.

[1284] “Rege ... præcepta _medicorum_ non curante.” R. Coggeshall, _l.c._

[1285] R. Coggeshall, 95, 96; W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 600-5.

[1286] R. Howden, _l.c._

[1287] Addition to G. Vigeois, 342.

[1288] R. Coggeshall, 96.

[1289] R. Howden, iv. 83.

[1290] R. Howden, iv. 83; cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 593, and R. Coggeshall, 96. Howden gives the name of Richard’s slayer as Bertrand de Gourdon; in the MSS. of W. Armor., _Phil._ (lib. v. v. 587), it appears in different forms, which M. Delaborde takes to be misreadings of “Gurdo.” Gervase of Canterbury, i. 592, calls the man “juvenis quidem Johannes Sabraz agnomine”; R. Diceto, ii. 166, calls him “Petrus Basilii,” and is supported by the anonymous continuator of G. Vigeois, 342, who says: “Unus de militibus” [_i. e._ the two knights in the castle] “vocatus Petrus Bru, alter Petrus Basilii, de quo dicitur quod sagittam cum arbalista tractam emisit qua percussus rex intra duodecimam diem vitam finivit.”

[1291] R. Coggeshall, 96.

[1292] Charter of Eleanor—summarized in Round’s _Calendar of Documents relating to France_, i. 472—to the abbey of S. Mary at Torpenay, to which she grants an endowment “for the welfare of the soul of her dearest son Richard, king of England, and for the yearly celebration of his anniversary,” “because her beloved [Luke, abbot of Torpenay,] was present with her at the illness and funeral of her dearest son the king, and laboured above all others at his obsequies.”

[1293] R. Howden, iv. 84.

[1294] R. Coggeshall, 96. “Septima hora noctis,” says the continuator of G. Vigeois, 342. R. Coggeshall gives the day as April 7, but his own next words—“scilicet undecimo die a vulnere sibi illato”—show this to be an error for April 6, the date given by the best English authorities, R. Diceto, ii. 166, Gerv. Cant., i. 593, and R. Howden, _l.c._, and also by the Cont. G. Vigeois, _l.c._

[1295] _Ann. Winton_, a. 1199.

[1296] _Magna Vita S. Hugonis_, 286.

[1297] Gerv. Cant., i. 593.

[1298] W. Armor., _Phil._, lib. v. vv. 611-17.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg 24: ‘contract of mariage’ replaced by ‘contract of marriage’.
Pg 40: ‘out of Augoulême’ replaced by ‘out of Angoulême’.
Pg 92: ‘They came foward’ replaced by ‘They came forward’.
Pg 167: ‘king had deen’ replaced by ‘king had been’.
Pg 169: ‘two thousand kinghts’ replaced by ‘two thousand knights’.
Pg 169: ‘An August 2’ replaced by ‘On August 2’.
Pg 312: ‘to the developement’ replaced by ‘to the development’.
Pg 323: ‘the appointed term’ replaced by ‘the appointed time’.
Pg 331: ‘Gefangenshaft’ replaced by ‘Gefangenschaft’.
Pg 348: ‘slayer, 832’ replaced by ‘slayer, 328’.

Footnote [41]: ‘was a Proven al’ replaced by ‘was a Provençal’.
Footnote [43]: ‘Geoff. Vi eois’ replaced by ‘Geoff. Vigeois’.
Footnote [113]: ‘Gir. Camb.’ replaced by ‘Gir. Cambr.’.
Footnote [120]: ‘Gir. Camb.’ replaced by ‘Gir. Cambr.’.
Footnote [134]: ‘this pasaage is’ replaced by ‘this passage is’.
Footnote [372]: ‘seems to hav’ replaced by ‘seems to have’.

Footnote [458]: ‘[1190]’ replaced by ‘(1190)’;
Footnote [1233]: ‘[1198]’ replaced by ‘(1198)’ to avoid confusion
with Footnote numbering.