FOOTNOTES:
[1] R. Diceto, ii. 67, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe), iii. 3. Both the prophet and his commentator ignore the fact that what they call Eleanor’s “third nesting” was really her sixth, as she had already had, besides her two elder sons, two daughters by her first marriage and one by her second.
[2] Rog. Howden, iii. 215.
[3] Chron. Anon. in Rer. Gall. Scriptt. xii. 121. She had joined him before the end of August; Chron. de Bello, 76.
[4] R. Torigni, a. 1157; Pipe Roll 3 Hen. II, 107.
[5] R. Torigni, a. 1157.
[6] W. Newburgh, lib. ii. c. 4.
[7] Place from R. Diceto, i. 302; day from Chron. S. Albini Andeg., a. 1157.
[8] “MS. in Lord Arundel’s collection,” as quoted by James, Collections, vii. 34 (Bodl.); Stubbs, preface to R. Howden, iii., xviii. note 2.
[9] In 1220 Henry III granted to another person “septem libratas redditûs in Chippenham quas Hodierna nutrix domini Regis Ricardi avunculi nostri habuit,” Close Rolls, ii. 416 b. That the grant to Hodierna was made by Richard may be inferred from there being no trace of the payment in the Pipe Rolls of his father’s reign. Stubbs notes that “this could not have been the whole of her property, for her land in 30 Hen. III” [1246-7], “was talliaged at 40s.”; also that “the parish of Knoyle Hodierne in Wiltshire still preserves her name.” Pref. to R. Howd. iii., xviii. note 2.
[10] R. Diceto, i. 293.
[11] See especially Chron. S. Maxent., a. 1060 and 1110, and Hist. Pont. et Com. Engolism., Labbe, Thesaurus, ii. 268 (a. 1070-1101).
[12] Geoffrey of Vigeois, Labbe, Thes., ii. 304. This was in 1136-7. M. Richard (Comtes de Poitou, ii. 51) thinks Emma was only betrothed, not married, to the duke. His arguments are not strong enough to convince me against the distinct statement of Geoffrey of Vigeois.
[13] “Lemovicæ comes” (sic) “habet feudum de abbate S. Martialis castellum de Petra Buffiera et turrim de castello quod est super Charnix, Lemovicense castrum, vicariam de turre, Bernardii castellum de Cambono S. Valeriæ. Pro his omnibus debent hominium facere abbatibus cunctis omnes vicecomites qui feudum istud tenuerunt”—Geoffrey, the writer, had twice seen it performed—“... Abbas tamen dominium totius castri Lemovicini habere debet, vicecomes vicariam tantum.... Burgenses vero argenti pondere fulti vicecomiti vix obtemperant, quando minus monachis” Geoff. Vigeois, 333. For the significance of “castrum Lemovicense,” see the next footnote.
[14] “Lite mota inter cives et hospites, Dux irritatus est; tunc muros castri, qui non multo tempore fuerunt constructi, funditus evertit, pontemque disrupit.... Procurationem noluit Albertus Abbas in urbem facere Duci, dicens non debere extra septa reddere castri.” Geoff. Vigeois, 308. Limoges in those days, and long after, was a sort of double town of which one part, comprising the cathedral church and its precincts and seemingly called the “city,” belonged to the bishop, and the other part to the abbot of S. Martial’s, under homage to whom it was governed by the viscount. Each part had its own enclosure. There was no castle in the ordinary sense of that word; but the abbot’s part, which was the more populous and important part of the town, seems to have taken the title of castrum. The case was somewhat like that of the city of Tours and the Castrum S. Martini, or Châteauneuf.
[15] Geoff. Vigeois, 308-10.
[16] R. Torigni, a. 1159.
[17] Treaty in Lyttelton, Henry II, iv. 174.
[18] “Ad corredium Ricardi filii Regis £10 6s. 8d. per breve Regis,” Pipe Roll 9 Hen. II (1162-3) 71. Cf. an entry, ib., 72; “in porcis et ovis et minutis rebus contra festum filii Regis 100s.” Henry was in London that year in the first week of March (Eyton, Itin. Hen. II, 59), and again on October 1 (Mater. for Hist. Becket, iv. 201). It is possible that the royal family may have been there also in September, and that the “festum filii Regis” may have been Richard’s birthday; but it is perhaps more likely to have been that of young Henry, February 28.
[19] R. Torigni, a. 1165.
[20] Gerv. Cant., i. 205.
[21] Mater. for Hist. Becket, Ep. ccliii., vi. 74.
[22] R. Torigni, a. 1167. Cf. Mat. for Hist. Becket, Ep. cclxxvii., vi. 131.
[23] R. Torigni, l.c. Cf. Chronn. S. Albini and S. Sergii, a. 1166.
[24] R. Torigni, l.c.
[25] Geoff. Vigeois, 318; R. Torigni, a. 1168; Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 456.
[26] Mat. for Hist. Becket, l.c.
[27] “Robertus de Silli,” Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 456; “Robertus de Selit,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318; “Robertus et frater ejus de Silleio,” R. Torigni, a. 1167. The name appears as “de Silliaco” in Mat. for Hist. Becket, vii. 165, 178, 247, 606, 610, 616. It cannot be Sillé in Maine as I suggested in Angevin Kings, ii. 137; it can hardly be anything else than Seilhac.
[28] R. Torigni, l.c., names “Haimericus de Lizennoio”; the writer of Ep. 434 in Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 456, names “Gaufridus de Lezinniaco” and “Haimericus de Rancone.” There seems to be no other trace of an Aimeric de Rancogne, if indeed Rancogne be the place intended here and not Rancon in La Marche, as to the ownership of which I can discover nothing. There was an Aimeric de Lusignan, and also a Geoffrey de Lusignan, and there was furthermore a Geoffrey de Rancogne of whom we shall hear again. To me it seems most probable that the Lusignan here referred to was Aimeric, and that his Christian name has (owing to a confusion between him and his brother) been transposed with that of the lord of Rancogne.
[29] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[30] Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 456.
[31] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[32] Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 409.
[33] Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 409.
[34] R. Torigni, a. 1168.
[35] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 1615-52. According to R. Torigni, l.c., Patrick was killed “circa octavas Paschae,” i. e. April 7, the very day of the conference.
[36] “Rex Henricus senior filio Richardo ex voluntate matris Aquitanorum tradidit Ducatum.” Geoff. Vigeois, 318.
[37] Cf. John of Salisbury’s letter in Mat. for Hist. Becket, vi. 506-7, R. Torigni, a. 1169, and Gerv. Cant., i. 208.
[38] R. Torigni, a. 1169.
[39] Geoff. Vigeois, 318. Bernard Itier, ed. Duplès-Agier, 58.
[40] “Novusque dux ab omnibus proclamatur,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318-19. Geoffrey does not give the year explicitly, but he does so implicitly by saying that Raymond of Toulouse did homage to Richard “anno sequenti.” S. Valeria’s body was at S. Martial’s abbey at Limoges; ib., 285. According to Geoffrey and the Chronicle of S. Martial’s (ed. Duplès-Agier), 209, she was the protomartyr not only of Aquitaine but of Gaul.
[41] Gesta Hen., i. 35-6. The presence of Eleanor and the date of the homage—“Dominica qua cantatur Invocavit Me,” i. e. February 25—are mentioned only by Geoff. Vigeois, 319, who adds: “Feria quarta, alias sexta, heroes qui per dies septem concilium celebravere Lemovica discedunt ab urbe”; i. e. the kings and counts were at Limoges either from Thursday, February 22, to Wednesday, 28, or from Saturday, February 24, to Friday, March 2. This assembly of a week’s duration at Limoges is clearly to be identified with the one described by the local chronicler, Bernard Itier, in a very corrupt passage which his latest editor, M. Duplès-Agier, has printed (p. 58) from the much mutilated MS. with conjectural emendations, thus: “Anno gracie MCLXXII ... [Alienor Regina] et filio Ricardo et com ... [et regibus de] Arragonia et de Navarra [venerunt] ... Lemovicas et per viii dies in ca[stro Lemovicensi moram] fecerunt.” February 1173 in our reckoning would be February 1172 in Bernard’s reckoning, as in the kingdom of France the year began at Easter. I think that for “Alienor Regina” we should substitute “Rex cum Regina,” and supply “[ite Tolosæ]” after “com.” What the king of Navarre—Sancho VI, father of Berengaria whom Richard ultimately married—had come for, there is nothing to show. Count Gerard of Vienne, whom R. Diceto (i. 353) adds to the list of those present, was a Provençal subfeudatary of Raymond of Toulouse, and so may have been concerned in Raymond’s dispute with Alfonso. The statement of R. Diceto (i. 353-4) that “quia Ricardus Dux Aquitaniæ, cui facturus esset homagium comes Sancti Ægidii, presens non erat, usque ad octavas Pentecostes negotii complementum dilationem accepit,” is clearly erroneous.
[42] Gesta Hen., i. 41-2. R. Diceto, i. 355.
[43] Geoff. Vigeois, 319.
[44] Gesta Hen., i. 42.
[45] Ib., 44.
[46] W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 27.
[47] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.
[48] Gerv. Cant., i. 242.
[49] Gesta, i. 49; but R. Torigni, a. 1173, mentions only young Henry and the counts of Flanders and Boulogne.
[50] Cf. Gesta, l.c.; R. Diceto, i. 373, etc.
[51] R. Howden, ii. 52.
[52] Gesta, i. 59. Cf. R. Howden, ii. 53.
[53] Gesta, i. 63.
[54] Ib., 46-7.
[55] Geoff. Vigeois, 320-3.
[56] Richard, Ctes. de Poitou, ii. 173, from Archives historiques de la Gironde, i. 388.
[57] Richard the Poitevin, Rer. Gall. Scriptt., xii. 420, 421, a passage which M. Richard, Ctes., ii. 174, note 2, says relates to 1173-4, not 1186-8 as formerly supposed.
[58] R. Diceto, i. 380. Cf. Chron. S. Albini, a. 1174.
[59] Gesta, 71.
[60] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., lib. iii. dist. 8 (Anglia Christiana Soc. edition, 106).
[61] Cf. Gesta, i. 76, and R. Howd., ii. 66.
[62] Gesta, l.c.
[63] R. Howd., ii. 67.
[64] Gesta, i. 77-9.
[65] See Angevin Kings, ii. 165, note 7.
[66] R. Diceto, i. 398.
[67] Ib. and R. Howd., ii. 71.
[68] Gesta, i. 78.
[69] See this clause in the treaty, ib., 77.
[70] Ib., 82-4.
[71] Gesta, i. 101. The place is there called “Castellum super Agiens.” M. Richard, Ctes. de Poitou, ii. 183, calls it “le château du Puy de Castillon”; cf. ib., 134, “Castillon sur Agen, place extrêmement forte,” from R. Torigni, a. 1161, “Castellionem super urbem Agennum, castrum scilicet natura et artificio munitum,” taken by Henry after a week’s siege in 1161. It seems to be identical with Grand-Castel, on the river, a little above Agen.
[72] Gesta, i. 114.
[73] Ib., 115.
[74] “In liberatione esnecce quando rex junior transfretavit £7 10s. per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que transfretaverunt cum eo ... £7 15s. per breve regis. Et item in passagio esnecce quando Ricardus filius regis transfretavit viil. and xs. per breve regis. Et in liberatione iiii navium que transfretaverunt cum eo vil. per breve regis.”—Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II (1175-6), 199.
[75] R. Diceto, i. 407.
[76] Gesta, i. 121. I am uncertain whether “Montigernac” is meant for Montignac, or Jarnac, or for both; very likely the latter, as the two places are close together, and the writer not being familiar with the country may easily have run two names into one.
[77] Cf. Gesta, 120, 121, with R. Diceto, i. 414.
[78] Gesta, i. 131-2. The writer’s chronology is obviously confused, but the closing date of the series may be correct.
[79] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[80] Gesta, i. 127.
[81] Ib., 195-6.
[82] Ib., 131, 132.
[83] Ib., 132.
[84] Ib., 168.
[85] Alex. III Ep. in Rer. Gall. Scriptt., xv. 954, 955. Cf. Gesta, i. 180, 181.
[86] Gesta, i. 168.
[87] Cf. Gesta, i. 180-1 with the Pope’s letter, Rer. Gall. Scriptt., xv. 954-5.
[88] Gesta, i. 181, 182.
[89] Ib., 190, 191; place from R. Diceto, i. 422.
[90] R. Howden, ii. 143.
[91] Gesta, i. 191-2; place and date from R. Diceto, i. 422.
[92] Gesta, i. 195.
[93] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[94] Cf. Gesta, i. 195-7, R. Diceto, i. 425, and R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[95] Gesta, i. 196.
[96] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[97] I infer this from the fact that neither she nor her husband, Guy of Comborn, seem ever to have put forth any claim to the county. Geoff. Vigeois, 324, speaks as if she were still living at the time of its sale. She may have died soon after, and as she was childless (ib., and Chron. MS. printed in Duplès-Agier, Chron. de Limoges, 188), whatever rights she might have claimed would die with her.
[98] Gesta, i. 197; R. Howden, ii. 147-8; and cf. Geoff. Vigeois, 324, and Chron. S. Mart. Limoges, 188, which gives the date October 7, but Adalbert’s own charter (Gesta and R. Howd., ll.cc.) says “mense Decembri.” G. Vigeois gives the sum paid as 5000 marks; the Chron. S. Mart., 189, R. Torigni a. 1177, and R. Diceto, i. 425, make it 6000 marks of silver, and R. Torigni adds “terram ... valentem, ut idem rex dixit, viginti millia marcas argenti.” The Gesta and R. Howden both insert a copy of Adalbert’s charter, but the writer of the former must have copied the figures wrongly, for he makes the sum only fifteen pounds Angevin; in Roger’s version it is 15,000 pounds Angevin. Both versions add twenty mules and twenty palfreys.
[99] R. Torigni, a. 1177.
[100] He was with his father and brothers at Angers at Christmas, 1177; R. Torigni, ad ann.
[101] “Cum magno exercitu in Pictaviam profectus,” says our authority, Gesta, i. 212; but clearly he must mean either “in Gasconiam” or “ex Pictavia.”
[102] Gesta, i. 212, 213.
[103] Ib., 212.
[104] R. Diceto, i. 431, 432. The Gesta, i. 212, say the siege began on May 3 and lasted only three days.
[105] Gesta, l.c.; cf. R. Torigni, a. 1179, who evidently did not know that Pons belonged to Geoffrey.
[106] R. Diceto, i. 432; Gesta, i. 213.
[107] R. Torigni, a. 1179.
[108] R. Diceto, i. 432.
[109] “Ricardo comiti Pictaviae l.m.,” Pipe Roll 25 Hen. II (1178-9), 101. “In passagio esneccae quando Ricardus comes Pictaviae transfretavit,” ib., p. 107.
[110] Itin. Ric., 144.
[111] Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 8.
[112] Itin., l.c.
[113] “Species digna imperio,” ib.; “formae dignae imperio,” Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ., l.c.
[114] Itin., l.c.
[115] “Hic leo noster plusquam leo.” Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 8.
[116] Ib.
[117] An obvious instance is Richard’s great-grandfather, King Henry I, who was called “the Lion of Justice.” Two of Richard’s own contemporaries are known as Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and William the Lion, king of Scots; though in this last case the appellation was probably derived merely from the cognizance on his shield.
[118] Cf., e. g., Coronement Loois, l. 1807—“C’est Fierebrace qui cuer a de lion.”
[119] “Le preuz reis, le quor de lion,” Estoire de la Croisade, l. 2310.
[120] Bertrand de Born in his sirventes often speaks of Richard by a nickname—“Oc e No,” “Yea and Nay.” Its use seems to be peculiar to Bertrand. Some modern writers have taken it as intended to imply that Richard was light of purpose, or of a wavering disposition. As Clédat points out (Bertran de Born, 101-2), such an explanation would be quite out of harmony not only with Richard’s real character as displayed in his actions from the very outset of his rule in Aquitaine, but also with every other indication of Bertran’s opinion of him. We might almost more reasonably conjecture that although when Richard did swear he used some very extraordinary oaths (“Per gorgiam Dei,” Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ. dist. iii. c. 25, on which Gerald comments “quoniam his et similibus sacramentibus uti solet”; “Par les gambes Dieu,” Hist. G. le Mar. ll. 8839, 9367), his usual practice was to “swear not at all,” but so to act that a simple statement from him of his will and purpose, “yea” or “nay,” was recognized as being no less positive and final than if he had confirmed it with an oath.
[121] Cf. the character given by a Flemish chronicler, “Richard ... ke otre toz les boins estoit preus e vaillans.” Hist. des Ducs, 84.
[122] Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 8.
[123] Ib.
[124] Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 8. Cf. Bertrand de Born, “Ar ve la coindeta sazos,” ll. 33-5:
where the context shows that the “lion” stands for Richard.
[125] Gir. Cambr. De Instr. Princ., l.c.
[126] Ib.; Gerv. Cant. i. 303; and cf. R. Diceto, ii. 19—“Pictaviensibus ... quos Ricardus indebitis vexationibus et violenta dominatione premebat.”
[127] His brutal treatment of his Breton and “Basque” prisoners in 1183 is a wholly different matter. Those prisoners were not his own subjects; they were foreign invaders; the charge of cruelty mentioned above had no reference to them. Moreover, even their fate does not necessarily indicate that Richard was of a specially cruel disposition, for that fate does not appear to have outraged the public opinion of their day, at any rate in Aquitaine.
[128] Gesta, i. 292.
[129] Geoff. Vigeois, 317. It is a pity that Geoffrey’s rime, “Richardus, qui ad probitatis opera nunquam exstitit tardus,” cannot be reproduced in an English translation; and also that “prowess” in its modern use conveys such an imperfect idea of the medieval probitas. The rime may be unintentional; but it is far more likely to be derived from some vernacular couplet current at the time “... En Richartz, Qu’ad obras de proesa ja n’estet tartz,” or something similar.
[130] R. Torigni, a. 1179. See the various names applied to these “malignants,” “whose teeth and arms had nearly devoured Aquitaine,” in Geoff. Vigeois, 328, 334.
[131] Ib., 325; for date see Clédat, B. de Born, 42, note.
[132] See B. de Born’s sirventes, “Ges no me desconort,” ll. 22-3, where he speaks of “the three counts of Angoulême”—“li trei comte fat Engolmesi.”
[133] Geoff. Vigeois, 326.
[134] In p. 327 Geoffrey says in reference to a period which from the context seems to be about the end of January 1181: “Tunc genus inimicitiarum Richardi et Alienoris in speciem amicitiae vertitur.” As there is no indication elsewhere of “unfriendliness” between Richard and his mother, nor of anything which might have given rise to it, nor of anything likely to produce a change in their feelings towards each other at this time; and as, moreover, their intercommunications must for the past seven years have been extremely limited if not altogether non-existent, seeing that Eleanor had been throughout that time in confinement in England, I cannot but suspect that this passage is corrupt. Possibly “Alienoris” may be a transcriber’s mistake for “Ademari,” and the person really meant may be Aimar of Limoges.