[4]
“Quem gratia juventutis et innocentia cunctis reddidit amabilem, et venusta
facies cum flava caesarie singulis favorabilem, sermo quoque maturus universis
venerabilem.” Mat. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 196.
[5]
“Qui son meistre e son norriçon Out este e encor esteit,” Hist. G. le Mar.,
ll. 15263–4. These words seem to imply that Ralf was Henry’s tutor, or teacher,
but this cannot have been the case, for Ralf was only a man-at-arms, “serviens”
(Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 345 b, 362); no doubt, one whose proved fidelity to the
late king had entitled him to be specially trusted to watch over the safety of
the heir.
[14]
The Hist. des Ducs, p. 181, and the Annals of Margan, Tewkesbury, Winchester,
and Waverley, a. 1216, say that Henry was crowned by Gualo; the
Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15329–31, says “Wales la messe li chanta, Li legaz, e sil
corona, O li evesques qui la furent”; and the official letter written in Henry’s
name to the Justiciar of Ireland says he was crowned “by the hands of Gualo the
Cardinal legate and the bishops then present” (Foedera, I. i. p. 145). Probably,
however, they all mean merely what is expressly, though awkwardly, stated by
the Merton chronicler—“Coronatus ... a domino Syvalone legato ...
assistentibus sibi domino Petro Wintoniensi episcopo qui eum inunxit et coronam
imposuit capiti, ut dicunt” &c. (Petit-Dutaillis, Vie de Louis VIII., p. 514),
and more clearly by the Barnwell annalist: “Imposuit autem ei manus
ex jussu legati episcopus Wintoniensis” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233). Roger of
Wendover (vol. iv. p. 2) says Henry was crowned and anointed by Bishop Peter;
Matthew Paris (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 2) that Peter of Winchester and
Jocelyn of Bath crowned him; the Dunstable annalist (Ann. Monast., vol. iii.
p. 48) that he was crowned by Gualo’s authority, but by the hands of the Bishops
of Winchester, Worcester, and Exeter. Wykes’s account of the coronation is
obviously fantastic, except in one detail, that of the “sertum quoddam,” which
is no doubt correct, as certainly no real crown could be available.
[15]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15333–46. This corrects the statement of R. Wendover,
l.c., “duxerunt regem ... regalibus indutum ad mensam.”
[17]
Winchester, Worcester, Chester (or Coventry), Bath, Exeter, and Meath;
see R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1, Ann. Wav., a. 1216, Ann. Dunst. a. 1215, p. 48, and
Chron. Merton, l.c.
[77]
W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 232. The words are “Hiis diebus, antequam de obitu
regis mentio fieret, impetraverunt qui apud Dovram obsessi erant inducias usque
post Pascha, et soluta est obsidio”; but the more detailed accounts in our other
authorities clearly show that though hostilities were suspended before John’s
death, the siege was not actually raised till the beginning of November. Mr. G.
J. Turner appears to have overlooked this fact when he wrote that Hubert’s
absence from the coronation “excites some suspicion concerning his loyalty”
(“Minority of Henry III.,” part I., Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 2nd Series, vol. xviii.,
p. 246). It was precisely Hubert’s loyalty which made it impossible for him to
leave Dover till his truce with Louis was prolonged and the siege raised.
[78]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 182: “Grant doute
avoient” [the king’s friends] “de Looys, qui se partit tost de Douvre apries chou
que la trive fu prise entre lui et cels dedens, si s’en vint à Londres.”
[80]
For Newark and Lincoln see Hist. Ducs, p. 181; for Sleaford see
below, p. 25.
[81]
Norwich castle is said by Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. pp. 378–9) to have
been “found empty” and garrisoned by Louis before John’s death; but this is
a very unlikely story. Without discussing objections in detail, it is enough to
say that in the French expedition into East Anglia (R. Wend., l.c., M. Paris,
Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 182) during which this important acquisition is alleged to
have been made, Louis had in reality no personal share at all, being at the time
busy winning castles in Hampshire; and that the expedition was clearly a mere
raid, from which all the French troops engaged in it returned to meet Louis again
in London. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 172.
[86]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15717–28. According to one account, Louis made over
Hertford to Robert FitzWalter, to whom it had formerly belonged (Hist. Ducs,
l.c.); according to another, FitzWalter claimed it, but was put off with a
temporizing answer, on the advice of Louis’s French knights, who said, truly
enough, that “Englishmen who had betrayed their own sovereign were not fit to
be trusted with castles.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.
[92]E.g., the stores, &c., removed from Norwich and Orford were on 8th February
assigned for the reinforcement of Dover; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 335 b.
[102]
“Qui la”—i.e., at Rye—“estoit a grant plente de nes biens garnies de gens
armees, comme chil qui la mer ot a garder de par le roi.” Hist. Ducs, p. 183.
[107]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15859–67; cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 187.
[108]
From the Hist. G. le Mar. alone it might be supposed that the Marshal
himself had headed the expedition which captured Rye; but the Rolls distinctly
show that this was not the case.
[109]
“Crucesignati.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 108–109.
[111]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15868–9, 16034–6. We get the date by comparing these
latter lines with the date of Louis’s return; see M. Paul Meyer’s note 5, vol. iii.
p. 225.
[118]
A dateless letter from the Earl Marshal, Walter de Lacy, William de
Cantelupe, and Falkes, to the Earl of Salisbury and the younger Marshal, sets
forth that the writers have sworn “quod conventionem prolocutam inter dominum
nostrum Henricum regem Angliæ illustrem et nos” [sic, but surely it should be
vos?] “pro posse nostro firmiter et absque malo ingenio teneri faciemus,” wherefore
the two persons addressed are to come without delay to the writers, who will
have them absolved by the Bishop of Chichester, he being empowered by the
Pope and the Legate to absolve persons returning to allegiance. Pat. Rolls,
vol. i. p. 109.
[124]Ib. ll. 15960–84. Reinforcements were on 7th April summoned to be at
Winchester on Wednesday after the close of Easter, i.e., 10th April; Close Rolls,
vol. i. p. 335 b.
[125]
“S’en alerent Baucone,” Hist. G. le Mar., 15986. The name is hopelessly
corrupt; M. Meyer suggests in a note “à Suzhantone?” It is probably either
Southampton or Odiham; cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 187, 189.
[126]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16003–10. The place is there called Rovcestre, but
there can be no doubt Porchester is meant; we know from the Close Roll, vol. i.
p. 301 b, that the siege of Porchester was begun before 20th March.
[131]
See the orders “de conversis” in Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 300 b et seq.
[132]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 189, and Hist. G. le Mar.,
ll. 16092–6. Roger gives the date, “post Paschalem solemnitatem,” i.e., after
26th March.
[134]
“In vigilia S. Georgii martyris,” Chron. Merton in Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514.
The Barnwell Annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 236) says, “Sabbato quo finiendae
erant treugae applicuit Lodowicus apud Sandwich.” The day on which the truce
would end, if the “month after Easter” (see above, p. 19), meant a calendar
month, would be 26th April, and not Saturday but Wednesday. But a month of
four weeks from Easter would expire on Saturday, 22nd April; and this interpretation
is confirmed by the Hist. Ducs (l.c.), one MS. of which says Louis sailed
“le venredi devant le mois de Pasques”; see M. Francisque-Michel’s note, ib.,
and M. Paul Meyer’s notes to Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. 225. The only doubt
is whether Louis sailed on the night of Friday, 21st April, and landed on Saturday,
22nd, or sailed on Saturday, 22nd, and landed on Sunday, 23rd. As the preponderance
of evidence seems to be in favour of the latter view, I have based my
reckoning of the dates of his subsequent movements on the assumption of its
correctness.
[137]
“Fist tant a Hubiers de Bourg que les trives furent alongies,” Hist. Ducs,
l.c. Hubert may or may not have been there in person; the “truce” is obviously
only the local one, limited to Dover and quite independent of the general truce,
which was now unquestionably ended.
[142]
Comparing Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16039–44 and 16052–53, with Hist. Ducs,
pp. 189, 190, I venture to think that this is the true meaning of the poet’s somewhat
confused story, notwithstanding M. Meyer’s note 1, vol. iii. p. 225. The fact that
the Marshal was attesting royal letters at Winchester from 14 March onwards
does not prove that he had gained possession of the castle before that date.
[143]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16048–50. The order for razing Chichester castle had
been issued before, on 16 April; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 57.
[144]
“Li castiaus n’ot garde,” Hist. Ducs, p. 190.
[148]
From R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 15, we should suppose that Saer’s appeal to
Louis was made in London; but the Hist. Ducs, l.c., shows that it was made
at Farnham. On the other hand, the Flemish chronicler represents Saer as
departing straightway from Farnham for Mountsorel “on the morrow,” i.e.
Saturday, 29 April, “o grant chevalerie d’Englois” and some seventy French
knights (pp. 190, 191); while Roger says the relieving force—which he makes to
consist of six hundred knights and more than twenty thousand men-at-arms—started
from London “pridie kalendas Maii, id est die Lunae proximo ante
Ascensionem Domini” (l.c.). The last day of April, 1217, was Sunday, not
Monday. I think we may combine the two accounts, and assume that Saer
left Farnham on April 29 to go not directly towards Leicestershire, but to
London. The journey thither, and the necessary preparations after he had joined
his associates there, must have taken a couple of days, and the combined forces
could hardly set out before Monday, 1 May. The Ann. Dunst., p. 49, say the
relieving force consisted of “the barons who were at London,” the Count of
Perche, the Marshal of France, and ten thousand armati whom Louis had given
them. The Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16085–92, which says the party set out from
Winchester at the same time that Louis and the rest of his forces returned thence
to London, is obviously quite wrong.
[168]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16240–46. Cf. R. Wend., l.c. In p. 25 Roger gives
the date of the battle as “quarto decimo kalendas Junii, sabbato scilicet in
hebdomada Pentecostes,” where the ecclesiastical date is correct, but not the
civil one. One MS. of the Hist. Ducs makes it “la velle de la Pentecouste;”
but the other has “la velle de la Trinite,” p. 194, note 3. The Annals of
Waverley, a. 1217, give the true date, “tertio decimo kalendas Junii, in hebdomada
Pentecostes.” So also R. Coggeshall, p. 185.
[171]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20. He makes seven divisions, or “battles,” instead
of four, but gives no details of their arrangement. It is possible that either he or
the Marshal’s biographer may have put the crossbowmen in a wrong place.
[178]
“Whom God preserve both in body and soul!” prays the Marshal’s biographer,
l. 16492. The other party called her “molt engigneuse e mal querans e
vighereuse vielle,” Anon. Béthune, quoted by Petit-Dutaillis, p. 148.
[187]
“At illi” [i.e.majores exercitus] “per eam” [the “little back door” of the
castle, “posterulam quae propter adventum eorum fuerat jam aperta,” cf. above,
p. 36] “noluerunt omnes intrare, sed miserunt Falcasium cum agmine toto cui
praeerat et cum balistariis omnibus, qui portam civitatis saltem unam exercitui
aperirent. Deinde omnis multitudo ad portam se aquilonarem conferens illam
confringere vacavit ... Falcasius interim castrum cum agmine cui praeerat
ac balistariis omnibus ingressus,” &c. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.
[190]
“Mes soufrez que entor la tor Augent dui home tot entor De chascune de
nos batailles Qui enquerront les repostailles,” ll. 16563–66. La tor ought of
course to mean the castle. But the castle was known to be surrounded on three
of its sides by enemies in open action against it; to send men to look for
“ambushes” round it seems therefore absurd, and would certainly have been
impracticable. Can la tor be a scribe’s error for le mur, and did the poet mean
“round the wall of the city”? Or can “entor la tor” be a sheer blunder for
something wholly different, and should ll. 16564–5 be construed together—“Let
two men go all round each of our battles,” &c.?
[195]
The poet in ll. 16335–40 excludes the English rebels from his reckoning; but
in ll. 17026–7 he seems to include the English knights fighting on the French side
in the six hundred and eleven. The Hist. Ducs, p. 191, makes only seventy
French knights.
[197]
“Nundinae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25. See Professor Tout’s article on
“The Fair of Lincoln,” Eng. Hist. Rev., April, 1903, p. 241, note 2. Cf. also
Hist. G. le Mar., l. 16334 (see above, p. 34).
[200]
That is, after going along what is now the street called Westgate to its
junction with that now known as Bailgate (a portion of the old Ermine Street),
they turned southward down the latter; the “church on their left” would be
All Saints, near the angle formed by the junction of Bailgate and Eastgate. The
cathedral church would have been called not “un moustier” but “le moustier,”
as in l. 16705.
[201]
Obviously the space between the west front of the cathedral church and the
east gate of the castle.
[208]
“Aval une rue a senestre S’en tornerent vers Wikefort,” ll. 16774–5. Perche
and his men had evidently been fighting with their backs towards the east front of
the minster, so that the “street on their left” would be the main road—Ermine
Street, Steep Hill, High Street—running down due southward “towards Wigford”
as the poet says.
[209]
The present Stonebow was built in the fifteenth century, but the name
“Stan-bogh” occurs in a document dating from 1220–1230. Sympson, Lincoln,
pp. 384, 425.
[210]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16777–828. Wigford Bridge is now called the High
Bridge.
[220]
Saer de Quincy (Earl of Winchester), Henry de Bohun (Earl of Hereford),
Gilbert of Ghent, Robert FitzWalter, Richard de Montfichet, William de Mowbray,
William de Beauchamp, William Mauduit, Oliver D’Eyncourt, Roger de
Cressy, William de Coleville, William de Ros, Robert de Ropsley, Ralf Chaineduit,
R. Wend.,vol. iv., pp. 23–24; to these the continuator of Gervase of Canterbury
(vol. ii. p. 111) adds Robert FitzWalter’s son, Gilbert de Clare, Gerard de
Furnival, Stephen and Maurice of Ghent, Nicolas and Eustace de Stuteville,
Warin de Montchensy, Ralf and Roger de Tony, Geoffrey de Say, Henry and
Philip, sons of Earl David (of Huntingdon), William de Huntingfield, William de
Hastings, Nicolas de Kennet, Robert de Grilley, Robert of Newburgh the constable
of Hedingham, John of Bassingbourne, Ralf Murdac, Anselm de Kent,
William de Fiennes, Geoffrey and Walter de St. Leger, Henry de Braybroke,
Adam FitzWilliam, Simon de Kime, Walter de Thinham, Robert Marmion the
younger, John of St. Helen’s, William Martel, and John of Sanford. The Chron.
Merton (Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) gives the total number as fifty-two. One of those
enumerated above, however—Henry de Braybroke—is said by the Dunstable
Annalist (p. 49) to have escaped with Simon de Poissy. Earl William de Mandeville
and the constable of Chester also escaped; Hist. Ducs, p. 195.
[221]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24. Cont. Gerv. Cant., l.c. In W. Cov., vol. ii.
pp. 237, 238, the number is given as three hundred and eighty, but avowedly
only on hearsay.
[230]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 64. The Marshal was back at Lincoln on the 22nd;
Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 308 b.
[231]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26. Ann. Dunst., p. 50.
[232]Hist. Ducs, p. 195, says “le joesdi apries le Pentecouste” instead of after
Trinity; but this is a mistake caused by the writer having dated the battle a week
too early; see above, footnote 168.
[236]Hist. Ducs, p. 197. The three abbots had letters of safe-conduct from the
king, who with the host was now at Reading, on 6th June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i.
p. 68.
[239]
Safe-conduct, dated 12th June, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 69.
[240]
They were Simon de Langton, Archdeacon of Canterbury and brother of the
Primate; Gervase of Hobrigg, Dean of S. Paul’s, London; Robert of S.
Germain, a clerk of the King of Scots; and Master Elias, a clerk of the Archbishop
of Canterbury. From the beginning of the war these men had set the
Papal authority at defiance, and they were now preaching at Paul’s Cross to the
people and “giving them to understand that the Royalists were excommunicate
and that Louis and his men were good folk, wrongfully excommunicated by the
Pope.” Hist. Ducs, pp. 197, 198. See the Archbishop of Tyre’s letter in Rer.
Gall. Scriptt., vol. xix. pp. 636, 637, and cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 198, and W. Cov.,
vol. ii., p. 238.
[241]
They had a safe-conduct to the sea on 21st June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i.
pp. 70, 71.
[242]
Before 22nd June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 71.
[247]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17085–103. The monstrous version of Philip’s speech
given by M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 216, is beneath notice except as an
illustration of Matthew’s own character as an historian.
[248]
R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 27, 28. See also the curious story in Récits d’un
Ménestrel de Reims, pp. 157, 158.
[249]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17117–24. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 50.
[250]
One hundred, Hist. Ducs, p. 198; three hundred, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28.
[252]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 336, 314 b, 317, 336 b.
[253]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 71; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 314.
[254]
Petit-Dutaillis, p. 157. See especially Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 310–312.
[255]
August 7–13; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 317 b–319 b.
[256]
Reading, August 14th; Farnham, August 15th. Ib. p. 320.
[257]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17167–210. Of this, again, Matthew Paris (Hist.
Angl., vol. ii. pp. 217, 218) has a version which is obviously a mere romance of
his own, devised—as needlessly as clumsily—to exalt Hubert de Burgh at the
expense of the Marshal.
[258]
Son of Warren’s sister; see Hist. Ducs, p. 200.
[260]
So say Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 28, and the Hist. Ducs, l.c. The
Marshal’s biographer, ll. 17293–4, says three hundred, but this does not tally with
our accounts of the smallness of the force which the fleet had to bring over.
[288]Ib. ll. 17473–80. The poet says, speaking “apres cels qui virent,” that
there were full four thousand Frenchmen slain, besides those who sprang overboard
and were drowned (Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 29). But he adds “Je n’i fui
pas; ci m’en descombre De dire ce que nuls ne seit,” ll. 17491–97.
[290]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17434–55, and Hist. Ducs, p. 202; cf. R. Wend.,
vol. iv. pp. 29, 30. This last says it was Richard the king’s son who answered
the inveterate turncoat’s offers of ransom and service by exclaiming “Nunquam
de caetero falsis tuis promissionibus quenquam in hoc saeculo seduces, proditor
nequissime,” drawing his sword and striking off his head. The French account
seems more probable, as I think we may safely identify the “Stephen Trabe” (or
“Crave”) of the Hist. Ducs with the poet’s “Stephen of Winchelsea.”
[294]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17510–68. The date is confirmed by Hist. Ducs,
l.c., R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 238; the Ann. Wav.,
a. 1217, erroneously make it the eve, instead of the day, of S. Bartholomew—“X.
kal. Septembris.”
[295]
“Destructi sunt barones apud Lincolniam.” Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis,
p. 514.
[302]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239.
[303]
“Ludowicus in arcto positus significavit Legato pariter ac Marescallo quod
ipse voluit consilio eorum in omnibus obedire, ita tamen quod salvo honore suo
et sine suorum scandalo pacem congruam providerent,” R. Wend., l.c. “Looys
parla a eus” [the Marshal and the Justiciar] “e il li orent en couvent que il se
peneroient en boine foi de la pais faire, e tele qui honnerable li seroit,” Hist.
Ducs, p. 203.
[305]Hist. Ducs, pp. 203, 204. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17683–90, where however
it is asserted that the French kept their English allies out of the council, “not
wishing them to know their secrets.”
[306]
“At illi, in quibus totum pendebat negotium, et qui Lodowici liberationem
supra modum desiderabant, quandam pacis formam in scripto redactam ei remiserunt.”
I am conscious that my rendering of Lodowici liberationem is a bold one
but I believe it conveys the real meaning better than a strict translation.
[308]
“Item, Dominus Ludovicus faciet juramentum corporale, et sui cum eo,
et cartas suas facient singuli quos consilium domini Regis voluerit, quod pacem
praescriptam firmiter et fideliter tenebunt; et ad impetrandam super hoc confirmationem
Domini Papae et Domini Legati apponet legale posse suum per
preces.” Foedera, I. i. p. 148; D’Achéry, Spicilegium, vol. iii. p. 586. Why
Louis should be specially charged with the duty of obtaining confirmation of the
peace from the Pope, and still more from the Legate, when the latter was at the
head of those who were actually dictating its terms, is one of the many puzzles
connected with the treaty of Kingston. The Pope, however, did confirm the
treaty, on 13th January, 1218, and he says expressly that he did so at the request
of Louis; Foedera, I. i. p. 149.
[309]
On the document summarized above see Note V.
[310]
“Cum autem forma pacis ad Ludovicum pervenisset, audienda et inspicienda,
placuit, timens multa deteriora.” Flores Hist., vol. ii. p. 165.
[311]
Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 31, says that Louis after discussing the draft
with his friends sent to ask for a conference; but the Hist. Ducs, p. 203, distinctly
indicates that this meeting on Tuesday (11th September) had been
arranged before the terms were sent to him.
[312]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17702–3; Hist. Ducs, p. 204. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 31,
says “near Staines.”
[315]
A stipulation of interest, which appears in only one known version of the
written conditions of peace, may probably have been inserted in them at the same
time: “Item, Dominus Ludovicus reddat Domino Regi rotulos de Scaccario,
cartas Judaeorum, et cartas factas de libertatibus tempore Regis Johannis a P.
Rumougrend (sic), et omnia alia scripta de scaccario quod (sic) habet, bona fide.”
(Martène and Durand, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, 1717, vol. i. p. 858).
I have no idea what can be the meaning of the words “a P. Rumougrend,”
unless they have, in process of transcription, been somehow evolved out of “in
p[rato] Runimead.”