[135] Geoff. Vigeois, 327.
[136] R. Diceto, ii. 9; cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 297.
[137] Geoff. Vigeois, 326; for the year see Clédat, B. de Born, 42, note.
[138] “Qui” (i. e. the Duke) “cum puella terram obtinere tentavit,” says G. Vigeois, 326. A statement made by some modern writers that Richard wanted to marry the girl and thus annex her county seems to be without authority.
[139] G. Vigeois, 326.
[140] Gerv. Cant. i. 303.
[141] Hautefort was in the diocese of Périgord, but in the viscounty of Limoges; cf. the two biographies of Bertrand de Born, Thomas, B. de Born, li., Stimming (ed. 1892), 51; the “contradiction” which Stimming (3) finds on this point exists only in his own imagination, and he is mistaken in branding as “false” the second biographer’s statement that Bertrand “fu de Lemozi,” for Bertrand himself speaks of “Nos Lemozi” in his sirventes “Eu chant,” l. 44, Thomas, 21, Stimming, 69.
[142] Razo of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7; Stimming, 6-7.
[143] Provençal biography of B. de Born, No. I, Thomas, li.
[144] Sirventes, “Lo coms m’a mandat,” ll. 45, 46, Thomas, 6.
[145] See “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” ll. 9-14.
[146] Another Aimar, William, and Elias. It was the two former who tried to get possession of Angoulême in succession to their eldest brother Vulgrin (G. Vigeois, 326). Elias was still living in January-February 1183, when “Helias et Sector Ferri” are coupled together by G. Vigeois (332) as “Vulgrini defuncti comites Engolismensis fratres.” It is doubtful whether “Sector Ferri”—Taillefer, a surname used by all the counts of Angoulême at this period—here represents William or Aimar. Some modern writers date William’s death in 1181. He was at any rate still alive in June of that year; G. Vigeois (326) says definitely “Guillermus et Ademarus defuncto inhiabant succedere fratri,” i. e. to succeed Vulgrin who died in June 1181, see Clédat, B. de Born, 42, note.
[147] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 35-8.
[148] “Tals me plevi sa fe No feses plait sens me,” ib. ll. 39-40. Obviously this “pledging of faith” could not apply to Bertrand alone. Nor was he the only one towards whom it was broken, as we shall see.
[149] Cf. “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 1-3, with “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 18-25.
[150] Razo of “Un sirventes cui motz no falh,” Thomas, 7. Bertrand himself mentions some of these lesser barons in “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 2, 9, 10.
[151] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 17-30.
[152] Gesta, i. 197.
[153] G. Vigeois, 324.
[154] He was there in February or March 1181, and again in May and on June 24, 1182; ib. 326, 330.
[155] “Pois Ventadorn,” l. 4.
[156] G. Vigeois, 330, 331.
[157] Ib., 320.
[158] “Quod protinus adimpletur,” says G. Vigeois, 326.
[159] See the last six lines of “Pois Ventadorn,” with the note of M. Thomas, B. de Born, 15. I venture to think M. Thomas is mistaken in assuming that “Talhafer” represents either Elias or William. We know from John’s treaty with Philip in 1193 that at some time or other Aimar had done homage to Philip (“Comes Engolismensis tenebit terram suam a Rege Franciae, illam scilicet de qua fecit se hominem [illius?]; a me,” i. e. John, “vero tenebit aliam terram quam a me debet tenere,” Fœdera I. i. 57); there is nothing to show that he was the youngest of the family; it seems more likely that he was the next to Vulgrin in age, and therefore, if Maud’s claim was to be ruled out, next to Vulgrin also in the line of succession.
[160] G. Vigeois, 331.
[161] The district in which Clairvaux stood—the Loudunais—had originally belonged to Poitou; it was annexed to Anjou towards the end of the tenth century by Geoffrey Greygown, who held it under homage to the Poitevin Count William III. This homage became obsolete after Geoffrey Martel’s victory over William VIII in 1033. Richard may possibly have had some idea of reviving the Poitevin claim to the overlordship of the Loudunais; but it is more likely that he simply did not know, and did not care to ascertain, exactly where the frontier line ran.
[162] “Pois Ventadorn,” ll. 33-40.
[163] Gesta, i. 294; R. Diceto, ii. 18, where young Henry is made to say that Richard fortified Clairvaux “contra suam” (i. e. young Henry’s) “voluntatem.”
[164] G. Vigeois, 332; Bern. Itier, a. 1182.
[165] G. Vigeois, 332—“Olivarus frater Petri vicecomitis de Castellone,” i. e. Castillon in Périgord. A month earlier Aimar of Limoges had taken and destroyed the “Burgum S. Germani”; ib. Probably this means S. Germain-les-Belles, near Limoges, and Aimar was merely chastising a vassal of his own; at any rate there is nothing to imply that the matter concerned Richard in any way.
[166] Cf. “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28, and “Chazutz sui,” ll. 29-31.
[167] “Chazutz sui,” ll. 25-36.
[168] “Ges de disnar,” ll. 27, 28.
[169] See “No posc mudar,” ll. 13-16, and Thomas, Introd. xv. I venture, however, to think that “Rancon” probably stands not for the place now so called, in Haute-Vienne (Thomas, 77, note 4), i. e. in the Limousin, but for Rancogne in the Angoumois, the home of the well-known Geoffrey, lord also of Pons and of Taillebourg.
[170] See “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 11-14, with the reference to “quem disses [el coms, i. e. Richard] antan.”
[171] Gesta, i. 291.
[172] Ib., 294, 295.
[173] Ib., 295.
[174] Gesta, i. 295.
[175] R. Diceto, ii. 18—“homagium et ligantiam.” Cf. Gesta, i. 291-2.
[176] R. Diceto, l.c.
[177] I. e., probably, to an explanation that the homage was not meant to take effect till young Henry should be in his father’s place.
[178] Gesta, l.c.
[179] Ib., 295.
[180] “Vehementer excanduit, incongruum esse dicens, ut dicitur, cum eodem ex patre, cum eadem ex matre, traxisset originem, si fratrem primogenitum aliqua specie subjectionis superiorem agnosceret; sed sicut ipsi fratri suo regi lege primogenitorum bona debebantur paterna, sic in bonis maternis aequa lance successionem legitimam vindicabat,” R. Diceto, ii. 18, 19. That is to say, in fact, he claimed to hold Aquitaine, after his father’s death, as a direct underfief of the kingdom of France, and not as a part of the Angevin dominions at all. In other words, he claimed the right to break up the Angevin empire; which was precisely what Henry II was trying to prevent.
[181] Gesta, i. 292.
[182] R. Diceto, ii. 19.
[183] Cf. Gesta, i. 292 and 295.
[184] “Transacta Purificatione B. Mariae,” G. Vigeois, 332. Geoffrey dates the quarrel between the king’s sons “tertio idus Decembris, celebrata Domini Nativitate.” Can he mean “tertio idus Januarii,” January 11? This might very well be the date of the final quarrel between young Henry and Richard.
[185] Gesta, i. 296.
[186] G. Vigeois, l.c.; Gesta, i. 292, 293.
[187] Gesta, i. 293. It is hardly possible that Geoffrey can have had time to go in person into Britanny as the Gesta imply; but it is clear from Bertrand de Born’s poem “D’un sirventes nom chal” that he was deep in the Aquitanian plot before his eldest brother’s adhesion to it was known; no doubt, therefore, he had secretly made his preparations beforehand for the crisis which had now come.
[188] G. Vigeois, 332.
[189] G. Vigeois, 332.
[190] Gesta, i. 292. G. Vigeois, l.c., mentions among the “barones et principes” who “tunc temporis conspiraverunt adversus Ricardum,” besides young Henry and Geoffrey of Britanny, Elias, and “Taillefer” of Angoulême, Aimar of Limoges, Raymond of Turenne, Peter viscount of Castillon and his brother Oliver of Chalais, Fulcaud of Archiac (in Saintonge) and Geoffrey of Lusignan. This last was now at Limoges, and in the most intimate counsels of the young king; see Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 6408-13.
[191] R. Howden, ii. 274.
[192] G. Vigeois, l.c.
[193] Saint Pierre du Queiroix, “de Quadrivio,” situated near the north-east angle of the old town or Castrum S. Martialis; ib.
[194] “Santius de Sarannas et Curbanus seu Curbaranus,” G. Vigeois, 333; in all other places where Geoffrey mentions the latter he uses the longer form of the name. “Curbaran” is the name of a Saracen prince in the Chanson d’Antioche. In the printed editions of Geoffrey’s history the other leader figures as Sautius and Saucius, but these are probably misreadings of Santius and Sancius, Latin for Sancho or Sanchez. Sérannes or Serranes is the name of a cluster of hills in what is now the department of Héraut; most likely this bandit chief had a favourite lurking-place there; cf. “Willekin of the Weald.”
[195] G. Vigeois, 333, 334.
[196] Ib., 333-4.
[197] “Citramarinos principes.”
[198] G. Vigeois, 335-6.
[199] Gesta, i. 299.
[200] G. Vigeois, 335.
—“Eu chant,” ll. 7-12. Bertrand’s modern commentators have assumed that the nominative to “a cobrat e ... delivrat” is “lo reis joves,” and understood ll. 9-12 as referring to the invasion of the Angoumois and Saintonge by the Routiers in behalf of young Henry. I venture to suggest that the true nominative is “lo coms”—i. e., the count of Poitou. There could be no “recovery” of the Angoumois either by or for young Henry, who had never had any authority there. The whole structure and context of the lines indicate that they refer to Richard. “Finibus Terra,” Finisterre, doubtless stands here, like “Broceliande” in another of Bertrand’s poems (“D’un sirventes nom chal,” l. 33), simply for Britanny.
[202] “Eu chant,” ll. 5-12, 16-18. On l. 8, “Sil coms,” etc., see Stimming’s note, 155.
[203] G. Vigeois, 336.
[204] “Eu chant,” ll. 37-42.
[205] G. Vigeois, 338.
[206] Ib., 337.
[207] Ib., 336, 338.
[208] Ib., 337; cf. Gesta, i. 302, 303.
[209] G. Vigeois, 337.
[210] On comparing the words of G. Vigeois, l.c.—“Castrum ... dux jure praelii cepit”—with those of Bertrand himself—“Autafort, Qu’eu ai rendut Al senhor de Niort, Quar l’a volgut” (“Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 5-8), I think this must be the real meaning of both.
[211] “Ges no mi desconort,” ll. 9-14.
[212] G. Vigeois, l.c.
[213] “Nom chal d’Autafort, Mais far dreit ni tort, Qu’el jutjamen crei Monsenhor lo rei”; last four lines of “Ges de far sirventes.”
[214] “Ges de far,” ll. 9, 10.
[215] Literally “as true as any silver”—“fi com us argens,” “Ges no mi desconort,” l. 50.
[216] Gesta, i. 308.
[217] A. Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii. 373, from a document in the cartulary of Fontevraud. The “five years” which John is there stated to have spent in the abbey must be prior to February 1173; this appears from later notices of his whereabouts cited in my John Lackland, pp. 7, 8.
[218] Gesta, i. 308.
[219] G. Vigeois, 342.
[220] Ib., 338.
[221] Cf. ib., 338, 339, Rigord (ed. Delaborde), i. 36, and on the “Pacifici,” R. Torigni, a. 1183, Gerv. Cant., i. 300, 301, and Rigord, i. 37-39.
[222] G. Vigeois, 338.
[223] “Lobar seu le Bar,” ib., 323, 324, 326, 342. In a Life of S. Stephen of Grandmont which seems to date from the time of Pope Clement III (1187-91) or soon after, the same man is called “Lupardus.” Labbe, Biblioth., ii. 676.
[224] G. Vigeois, 342.
[225] Gesta, i. 306.
[226] Gesta, i. 306.
“A multo tempore quo comes erat Pictavensis ... plurimum desideravit eam,” Itin., 175.
[228] Gesta, i. 311.
[229] Ib., 319.
[230] Gesta, i. 319-21.
[231] Ib. 333, 334.
[232] Ib., 337.
[233] Ib., 313.
[234] Ib., 337, 338.
[235] Gesta, i. 338.
[236] Ib., 318, 319; R. Howden, ii. 288.
[237] Gesta, i. 322.
Thomas (73) and Stimming (36) are agreed that this sirventes dates from 1188. Stimming seems to think the lines quoted above refer to an event of quite recent occurrence; but anything like an avowed troth-plight between Richard and Berengaria at any time except between December 1183 and March 1186 would have been an insult to France so flagrant that neither Richard nor Sancho is likely to have run the risks which it would have involved. During that period, however, such a betrothal would give Philip no lawful ground for complaint, although a mischief-maker might easily use it, either at the time or some years later, to excite the French king’s resentment against a man who had thus failed to appreciate the honour of becoming his brother-in-law and preferred a daughter of Navarre to a daughter of France.
[239] Gesta, i. 343, 344; date from R. Diceto, ii. 40.
[240] Gesta, i. 345.
[241] R. Diceto, l.c.
[242] Gesta, l.c.
[243] Gesta, i. 345.
[244] Ib., 347, 350.
[245] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 43, 44, with Gesta, i. 353.
[246] Gesta, ii. 5.
[247] Rigord, l.c.
[248] Gerv. Cant., i. 346; cf. Rigord, l.c., who mentions only the dowry, not the bride.
[249] Rigord, l.c.
[250] Ib., 78.
[251] Cf. Rigord, 78, Gesta, ii. 6, and Gerv. Cant., i. 369.
[252] Gerv. Cant., i. 371-3.
[253] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 2.
[254] “Johannes ... cujus promotionis causa haec omnia mala sustinui.” Gir. Cambr., De. Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 25.
[255] R. Diceto, ii. 49. Gerald, De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 2, says one year; but Ralf is more to be trusted on this point. On the other hand, Ralf’s date—Tuesday, the eve of S. John—is a day too early to be compatible with the circumstantial narrative of Gervase.
[256] Rigord, i. 79.
[257] Gesta, ii. 7.
[258] Gerv. Cant., i. 373.
[259] Gesta, ii. 7.
[260] Ib., 9.
[261] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 5.
[262] Ib., R. Diceto, ii. 50; W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.
[263] Gerv. Cant., i. 389.
[264] W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23.
[265] Gesta, ii. 29. This writer, Roger of Howden (ii. 334), and R. Diceto (ii. 51) date the conference January 21; Gervase (i. 406) says “about S. Vincent’s day” (January 22); Rigord (83) and William the Breton (Gesta Ph. Aug., 187) say January 13. Probably it began on S. Hilary’s day, was suspended owing to the arrival of the archbishop of Tyre, and was resumed on January 21.
[266] Gesta, ii. 29-30. W. Newb., lib. iii. c. 23, represents the conference as held in consequence of the archbishop’s coming, and for no other purpose than to consult as to what could be done for Palestine. Rigord (l.c.), Gir. Cambr. (De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 5), Gerv. Cant. (i. 406) and R. Diceto (l.c.) say merely that the kings held a conference and took the Cross.
[267] Gir. Cambr., l.c.
[268] Gesta, ii. 30.
[269] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 7.
[270] Ib.
[271] On January 30; Gesta, ii. 33.
[272] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 7.
[273] R. Diceto, ii. 54, 55.
[274] Gesta, ii. 34.
[275] Gir. Cambr., l.c.
[276] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 7.
[277] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 55, and Gesta, ii. 34.