[268]
R. Wendover (ed. Coxe), vol. iii. pp. 139, 140. Cf. Gesta Ric. pp. 81,
82.
[269]
That the famous speech put into the mouth of Archbishop Hubert by
Matthew Paris (Chron. Maj. vol. ii. pp. 454, 455) is not noted by contemporary
writers does not indeed prove that it was never delivered, but does indicate that,
if delivered, it had for contemporary ears no such significance as has been given
to it by some modern writers, or as Matthew himself appears to have attached to
it. Some such address may have been made to the assembly by the archbishop
before the coronation; but if so, it was evidently regarded at the time as a part
of the formalities usual on the occasion, not remarkable enough to be worth
recording. In Matthew’s own MS. the passage is a marginal addition; and in
the form in which he gives it, I can only regard it as the first of the many unauthenticated
interpolations into the plain text of Roger of Wendover with which
Matthew has confused for later students the history of the reign of John.
[270]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 90; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 139.
[277]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 91, says “Nottingham,” but R. Diceto, vol. ii. p.
166, says “Northampton,” and Hardy’s Itinerary of K. John, a. 1, shows the
king at Northampton on Whit Monday, June 7.
[279]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 91. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166, gives the date as
June 19, but the Itin. a. 1 shows John at Shoreham on the 20th, which is R.
Howden’s date for the crossing.
[281]
Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 92. The place called by Gervase “Ballum” and
“Wallum” can only be Gaillon, which Roger of Howden calls “Gwallum” in
vol. iv. p. 106.
[286]Rot. Chart. pp. 30, 31 (a. r.1). “Et,” adds John, “non tantum de
praedictis terris nostris volumus quod sit domina, sed etiam de nobis et omnibus
terris et rebus nostris.”
[293]
The writer of the Hist. de G. le Mar. v. 12472, calls it “Borc la Reïne,”
but seemingly for no other reason than that he had ended his previous line with
the word “fine” and wanted a rime to it.
[296]
R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 96, 97. Cf. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 167, Rot.
Chart. p. 31, and for dates Itin. a. 1, which show that Roger’s “mense
Octobris” cannot be right. That Constance had come with her son is nowhere
stated, but appears from the sequel.
[319]
R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 167. R. Coggeshall, p. 103, has another version,
but it seems to be incorrect. On the whole question of this divorce see Prof.
Maitland’s remarks in Eng. Hist. Rev. Oct. 1895, vol. x. pp. 758, 759.
[322]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 150. This was in fulfilment of an agreement
made between Philip on the one part, and the count of Angoulême and the
viscount of Limoges on the other, just after Richard’s death. Round, Cal. Doc.
France, vol. i. p. 471.
[323]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119; R. Coggeshall, p. 103.
[324]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119; R. Coggeshall, pp. 128, 129; R. Wendover,
vol. iii. p. 168. All these writers confuse Isabel’s betrothed with his father.
[339]
Innoc. III. Epp. l. vi. No. 167. R. Coggeshall, p. 135, dates this
appeal a year too late. The Pope, on the authority of Philip himself, speaks of
it as having been made “more than a year before” Philip issued his citation to
John, a citation of which the date is by other evidence fixed at the end of
March or early in April 1202.
[340]Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 2, dateless, but as the document is on the roll of
John’s second year, its date must be before May 3, 1201. From its position on
the roll, it would seem to belong to October 1200.
[341]
R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 160; R. Coggeshall, pp. 128, 129.
[349]
Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 164; Rigord, c. 135; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p.
93; and for dates, Itin. a. 3. Rigord’s “pridie Kalendas Junii” is doubtless
a mistake for “Julii.”
[357]
Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 174;Rigord, c.
137; and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167. John was at Orival on March 23;
then there is a blank for three days, and on March 27 he appears at Les Andelys,
Itin. a. 3.
[358]I.e. on April 28. The date is from Rigord, c. 138.
[359]
R. Coggeshall, pp. 135, 136. Cf. Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. Gesta P. A.
c. 110; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93; and Innoc. III. Epp. l. vi. No. 167.
[363]
See “The Alleged Condemnation of King John by the Court of France in
1202,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, new series, vol. xiv. (1900),
pp. 53–68.
[375]
Delisle, Catalogue des Actes de Phil.-Aug., No. 726.
[376]
Rigord, c. 138;W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 113. Arthur’s charter giving
full details of his homage to Philip is in Round, Cal. Doc. France, vol. i. p. 475.
Date, Gournay, July 1202.
[377]
Cf. Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 113, and Philipp. l.
vi. vv. 262–389; R. Coggeshall, p. 137; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 94, and R.
Wendover, vol. iii. p. 168.
[378]
Dates from John’s own letter, in R. Coggeshall, pp. 137, 138. Cf. R.
Wendover, vol. iii. p. 169.
[380]
R. Coggeshall, p. 138; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 169; Rigord, c. 138;
W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 113. This last has another version in his later and
less trustworthy work, the Philippis, l. vi. vv. 390–450. See also Hist. des Ducs
de Normandie (ed. Michel, Soc. de l’Hist. de France), pp. 93–95.
[381]
Rigord, c. 138; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 169.
[382]
He reached Falaise on August 10, Itin. a. 4.
[383]
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 170; W. Armor. Philipp. l. vi. vv. 455, 456.
[384]
W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 120. In Philipp. l. vi. vv. 343–6, he dates
this expedition earlier. In both works he speaks as if John had headed it in
person, but the Itin. a. 3, 4, shows that this was not the case.
[385]
W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 114; R. Coggeshall, p. 138. John was at
Chinon August 20–21, at Tours August 22–23, at Chinon again August 24–29,
and at Tours again August 30–September 1, Itin. a. 4.
[387]
Rigord, c. 138. Cf. Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 18.
[388]
R. Coggeshall, p. 138; Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12531–35. Ralf of Eu
was set free before November 7, 1202, Hugh and Geoffrey before January 17,
1203; Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 20, 23.
[396]Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12585–662. The writer appears to date this
affair in autumn 1202; and the Itinerary, a. 4, shows that John did in fact go
from Alençon to Le Mans on October 29, 1202. But the rest of the story is irreconcileable
with John’s subsequent movements. The only documentary evidence
which I have found as to the date of Count Robert’s treason is unluckily not
decisive; it is a charter of John, given “apud Beccum, xx die Aprilis anno regni
nostri quarto, quo comes Robertus Sagiensis fecit nobis proditionem apud
Alenconem” (Round, Cal. Doc. France, vol. i. p. 131). John in the fourth
year of his reign made three visits to Alençon besides the one already mentioned;
viz. one on December 7, 1202, and two in January 1203. The first of these
two January visits is probably the one recorded by the Marshal’s biographer. John was at
Alençon January 15–19, at Le Mans January 21–23, and at Alençon again
January 25 (Itin. a. 4). The Marshal’s biographer indeed asserts that the king on his return
from Le Mans
“Ne s’en vint pas par Alençon;
N’i passast unques sanz tençon
Anceis qu’il venist en sa terre;
Aileors ala passage quere;
Par Mamerz et par Belesmeis
S’en vint en sa terre li reis” (vv. 12657–62).
It seems, however, possible to reconcile this with the dates as given in the
Itinerary by supposing that, as he had an escort of “granz gens e rotiers,” he
may have ventured close up to Alençon, perhaps with an idea of surprising it,
but turned away again immediately. The Itinerary shows him at Séez on January
25–28, at Argentan on 28–30, and at Falaise 30–31.
[399]
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 170. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 143.
[400]Ann. Margan. a. 1204; the annalist, however, clearly meant to date the
event 1203. On the value of his authority see Bémont, Revue historique, vol.
xxxii. (1886), p. 59.
[402]
See Revue historique, vol. xxxii. pp. 33–72 and 291–311. M. Bémont’s
conclusion on this point, though disputed by M. P. Guilhiermoz in Bibliothèque
de l’École des Chartes, vol. lx. (1899), pp. 45–85, still holds the field. Cf.
Revue hist. vol. lxxi. (1899), pp. 33–41, and Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, vol. lx.
pp. 363–72.
[403]
Delisle, Catal. des Actes de Phil.-Aug. No. 783. According to R.
Coggeshall, pp. 144, 145, Philip virtually declared himself still ignorant on the
point six months later still.
[404]
Thus in March he received the liege homage of Maurice of Craon “for the
time of Arthur’s imprisonment”; should Arthur be released and adhere to his
engagements with Philip, Maurice was to be Arthur’s liegeman as he had been
of old; should Arthur break faith with Philip, then Maurice was to adhere to
the latter; should Arthur die, then Maurice was to remain a liegeman of Philip.
In like manner the castles of Brissac and Chemillé were in the following October
granted by Philip to Guy of Thouars, “saving the rights of Arthur if he be
still alive,” Delisle, Catal. des Actes de Phil.-Aug. Nos. 752, 783.
[405]
These were the alternative versions proposed by John’s friends, according
to M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 95.
[422]
“Johannem Mollegladium,” Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93. This nickname
is no doubt a translation of one which must have been applied to John in French,
though unluckily its vernacular form is lost. A friend has suggested that “if the
phrase had any English equivalent, it would probably be something embracing a
more direct metaphor than ‘Soft-sword’—something like ‘Tin-sword,’ or,
better still, if the thirteenth century knew of putty, ‘John Putty-sword.’”
[423]
W. Armor. Philipp. l. vii. vv. 140–393. Cf. Gesta P. A. c. 123.
[424]
Rigord, c. 141, says Philip laid siege to Radepont on August 31. John’s
attempt to relieve Les Andelys, being made from Rouen, cannot have been
earlier than August 29, more probably 30, Itin. a. 5.
[425]
Rigord, c. 141; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 121; Philipp. l. vii. vv. 400–2.
[428]Ib. vv. 12743–67. John was at Rouen from October 4 to 7, when he
went to Bonneville; Itin. a. 5. The poet goes on with an account of the
king’s wanderings till “s’en vint a Rouen arere,” but his itinerary does not
agree with the authentic one at any period of this year.
[434]
“Rege vero Johanne nullum praesidium ferre obsessis volente, eo quod
suorum proditionem semper timeret, infra hyemem, mense Decembri, in Angliam
transfretavit, omnes Normannos in magna timoris perturbatione relinquens,” R.
Coggeshall, p. 144. It seems probable that “volente” may be a clerical error
for “valente.”
[437]
Gerv. Cant. (vol. ii. p. 95) says the council was held “in London”; R.
Coggeshall (p. 144) describes its result, the embassy to France, as taking place
“after Mid-Lent,” i.e. after April 1. The only date about this time when
John was in London was March 22–29; Itin. a. 5.
[438]
Cf. R. Coggeshall, pp. 144, 145; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 95, 96, and Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12854–68.
[439]Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12869–98. Cf. the Marshal’s charter to Philip
(dated May 1204) in Cal. Doc. France, vol. i. p. 475.
[443]Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12921–6. John was at Portsmouth on May 5,
and at Porchester on May 5–7, 1204. The story may, however, be a mere
confusion with what happened in June 1205.
[444]
R. Coggeshall, p. 145, dates Philip’s siege of Falaise Easter (April 25);
but Rigord, a better authority on the point, places it in the May campaign
(c. 142).
[445]
Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 145; Rigord, c. 142; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 131,
and Philipp. l. viii. vv. 9–39.
[472]
R. Coggeshall, p. 154. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 98, says that the ships were
said to number nearly fifteen hundred, and R. Coggeshall, p. 153, that the
shipmen were said to be fourteen thousand.
[477]
M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 104. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 183,
and R. Coggeshall, p. 156, date Hubert’s death July 13; Gerv. Cant., vol. ii.
p. 98, dates it July 12. They all mean the same; from R. Coggeshall, p. 158,
we learn that the archbishop died shortly after midnight.
[478]
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 186; exact date from a writ (dated April 29,
1206) ordering the seizure of ships for transport; they are to be at Portsmouth
on Whitsun Eve, or before. Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 62 b, 63. A summons to
the men of the Cinque Ports, for the same date, was issued on May 12; ib.
p. 64.
[479]
Rigord, c. 144; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 134; R. Coggeshall,
p. 152.
[480]
R. Coggeshall, p. 154; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 182, 183.
[482]
Niort had been taken by, or had surrendered to, Philip, but was regained in
1205 for John by a stratagem of Savaric de Mauléon, whom John had taken
prisoner at Mirebeau and released on a promise of fealty—a promise which was
immediately fulfilled and faithfully kept. See Hist. des Ducs de Normandie,
pp. 100–4; and cf. (as to Savaric) R. Coggeshall, p. 146.
[484]
John crossed from Stoke to Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, on May 28, and thence
to La Rochelle on June 7. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 186, where Julii is, of
course, in both places a mistake for Junii; and Itin. a. 8.
[486]
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 187. The legend of the building of Montauban
by the “Four Sons of Aymon,” and its siege by Charles, is told in the romance
of Renaus de Montauban.
[492]
Cf. Chron. S. Albini, a. 1206; Rigord, c. 147; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c.
138, and Itin. a. 8. This last shows John on September 6 at Chalonnes, and
on the 8th at Angers. “Portus Alaschert,” therefore, must stand for Chalonnes
or some place very near it.
[493]Itin. a. 8. The Chron. S. Albini, a. 1206, says that before he left the
city he set fire to “the bridge”; which of the two bridges then existing, we are
not told, nor what was his object in destroying it.
[495]
The next stage of his Itinerary is “Saint Alemand” (September 23–26),
and the next after that (September 30, October 1) a place whose name is
recorded only in a contracted form (“Bercer’,” Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 167 b;
“Berc’,” Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 74 b) which can hardly represent anything else
than “Berchères” or “Bercières” (Sir T. D. Hardy made it Bercy, but this is
surely impossible). Saint Alemand is probably one of two places now called
Saint-Amand, in the Angoumois. “Tiebauts de Biaumont qui sires estoit de
Bierchières [var. Bercières]” figures among the Aquitanian barons who besieged
Savaric de Mauléon at Niort in 1205; Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 102. I
have failed to identify the place, but it was clearly in Aquitaine.