Richard the Lion Heart | Project Gutenberg

[279] Gesta, l.c.; cf. R. Diceto, l.c., Rigord (ed. Delaborde, 90) dates this invasion of Toulouse “inter Pentecosten et festum S. Johannis,” i. e. between June 5 and 24; we shall, however, see that it must have taken place some considerable time before June 16. In my Angevin Kings I adopted Rigord’s date, but I now recognize that this was an error, and that the editors of Vic and Vaissète are right in following William the Breton, who (ed. Delaborde, i. 187) places the expedition “a short time after” (modico post elapso tempore) a council which according to Rigord (ib., 84) was held at Paris in March. Otherwise there would not have been time for all the captures, negotiations, etc. “Toulouse” here evidently means the county of Toulouse proper; the Quercy was already in Richard’s hands, annexed by him to his ducal domains in 1186.

[280] Rigord, 90; cf. R. Diceto, l.c., Gesta, ii. 36, and Gerv. Cant., ii. 432.

[281] Gesta, ii. 34, 35.

[283] Gesta, ii. 35, 36.

[284] R. Diceto, ii. 55.

[285] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 7.

[287] Gesta, ii. 40. It is noticeable that the Angevin princes are at this period always represented as describing their Toulousan rival only by his ancestral title derived from the little county of S. Gilles which was the cradle of his family, thus tacitly reserving their own claim to be the rightful holders, not merely overlords, of his greater possession, Toulouse.

[288] Montrichard, Montrésor, Coulangé; Rigord, 91, 92.

[289] Date from R. Diceto, l.c. Cf. Gesta, ii. 39, and Rigord, l.c.

[290] Gerv. Cant. i. 432, 433; cf. Gesta, ii. 40.

[293] Ib., ii. 45.

[294] “Ne nihil ageretur,” Gerv. Cant., i. 434.

[295] Gerv. Cant., i. 434.

[296] Rigord, l.c.

[297] Gesta, ii. 45; cf. ib., 39, 40.

[298] R. Diceto, ii. 55; cf. W. Armor., Gesta Phil. Aug. (ed. Delaborde), 188, 189.

[299] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 7389-405, 7610-40.

[300] Gesta, ii. 46. William the Breton in his Philippis, lib. iii. ll. 410-624, gives a much longer account of this affair, with a minute description of the personal struggle between Richard and William des Barres, and no mention at all of the capture of William. There can hardly be a doubt that the English prose writer’s brief version is more trustworthy than the French poet-historiographer’s lengthy elaboration. The latter has, however, one interesting touch; in ll. 445-6 the poet makes William des Barres say of Richard: “Rictus agnosco leonum Illius in clypeo.”

[301] Gesta, ii. 46.

[302] This is an inference from the fact that Philip is said to have taken Palluau after the conference in October, Gesta, ii. 49.

[303] Gesta, ii. 49.

[305] “Fo ordenatz per lor us parlamens ou foron ensems en la marcha de Torena e de Beiriu, els reis Felips si fetz mains reclams d’en Richart, dont amdui vengron a grans paraulas e a malas, si qu’en Richartz lo desmenti el clamet vil recrezen, e sis desfieron e sis partiron a mal.” Razo of B. de Born’s sirventes “Al dous nous,” Thomas, 69, 70. Cf. Bertrand’s own words in the same sirventes, ll. 28-31: “Guerra sens fuoc e sens sanc De rei ni de gran poesta Cui coms laidis ne desmenta Non es ges paraula genta.”

[306] Gesta, ii. 49.

[307] R. Diceto, ii. 57.

[308] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.

[309] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8116-39. This writer’s story is here somewhat confused; he gives to the conference a date which is certainly wrong—“a cluse Pasque, le mardi” (l. 8069), i. e., Tuesday, April 18, 1189, instead of November 18, 1188.

[310] “Proposuit rex Francorum quod ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat Anglorum regi restitueret, et post, omnia manerent in eo statu quo fuerunt ante crucem susceptam.... Comes Pictavorum penitus contradixit; sibi quidem videbatur incongruum quod hac servata conditione Cadurcum redderet et totum comitatum, et alia multa ... pro feodo de Castro Radulfi et de castello de Hissoudun et Crazai,” etc., R. Diceto, ii. 58. The two kings took the Cross in January 1188. The date of Richard’s annexation of the Quercy is not certain, but it must be either 1186 or spring 1188. Philip took Châteauroux in June 1188; but he had won Issoudun and Graçay in the spring of 1187, therefore these two places would not be included in a restoration of “ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat.” The only possible explanation of the discrepancy seems to be that Ralph de Diceto momentarily confused the conference at which Philip and Henry took the Cross, at Gisors in January 1188, with their meeting at the same place on March 10, 1186.

[311] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 58, Rigord, 92, 93, Gerv. Cant., i. 435, and Gesta, ii. 50. The biographer of William the Marshal gives (ll. 8089-175) a somewhat different account of the conference; he says nothing of any request made there by Richard to his father, but represents Philip as urging Henry to increase Richard’s actual possessions by giving him Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and asserts that before the conference Philip had won Richard over to him by promising “qu’il li dorreit en demeine” those three counties, and Richard had privately done him homage for them. If we accept this story, we must regard the whole conduct not only of Philip but also of Richard at Bonmoulins as a piece of utterly shameless acting, performed with the deliberate purpose on Richard’s part of breaking finally with his father; for no sane person could expect any other answer than a refusal to such a request as this. The whole story of the relations between Henry, Richard, and Philip is, however, only touched upon in a very meagre and perfunctory way by the Marshal’s biographer, whose subject it did not directly concern, and who has almost certainly made one positive mistake with regard to the Bonmoulins conference, in giving it a date which is five months too late; I think therefore that the version of Rigord, Ralph de Diceto, and Gervase of Canterbury is to be in every way preferred to his.

[312] R. Diceto, ii. 58.

[313] Gerv. Cant., i. 435.

[314] R. Diceto, l.c.; Gesta, ii. 50. Cf. Rigord, 93.

[316] Ib., R. Diceto, ii. 58.

[317] “Eissi commensa la meslee Qui unques ne fu desmelee,” Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8185-6.

[318] Gerv. Cant., i. 435, 436.

[319] R. Howden, ii. 355.

[320] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8189-254.

[321] Cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 436.

[322] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8285-9.

[323] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.

[324] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 10.

[325] Gesta, ii. 61. Probably they joined forces in Berry and thence made an incursion into Touraine.

[326] Gerv. Cant., i. 439.

[327] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8311-30.

[328] R. Diceto, ii. 62.

[329] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 13.

[330] He visited Henry at Le Mans on Ascension Day, May 18; Epp. Cant., 90.

[331] Reims, Bourges, Rouen and Canterbury; Gesta, ii. 61.

[332] Ib., 66, with date “adveniente Pentecoste.” Rog. Howden, ii. 362, says “in octavis Pentecostes,” which agrees better with Gerald’s statement (l.c. c. 14) that the war began “about June 1.” Gervase of Canterbury (i. 446) is of course doubly wrong in placing the assembly “apud Cenomannum quinto Idus Junii.”

[333] Gesta, R. Howden, and Gerv. Cant., ll.cc.

[334] Gerv. Cant., l.c.

[335] Gesta, ii. 66.

[336] R. Howden, ii. 363.

[339] Gesta, ii. 67.

[340] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8349-50.

[341] Ib., 8357-74.

[342] “Rex Francorum et Comes ... intra paucos dies Feritatem praedictam, Baalum, Bellummontem ... occupaverunt. A municipalibus circumquaque Comiti fit deditio castellorum.” R. Diceto, ii. 62, 63. Cf. Gesta, ii. 67, where Maletable—“Malum Stabulum”—is probably a mistake for Bonnétable, about half way between La Ferté and Beaumont. The Marshal’s biographer (ll. 8362-68), like the Gesta, does not mention Richard, and names only three castles as falling into Philip’s hands—La Ferté, Ballon, and “Montfort le Retrot, qui gaires n’ert fort, E li fust tantost rendu, Unques ne fust defendu.” He, however, certainly knew of Richard’s presence with the French host, for we shall see that he expressly mentions him as engaged in the pursuit from Le Mans on June 12. If Beaumont was given up without resistance, its constable, not its owner the viscount, was probably answerable for the surrender, since it was at another of the viscount’s castles, La Frênaye, that Henry found shelter soon afterwards.

[343] Gesta, ii. 67.

[344] Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8835-46 with ll. 9321-37, and the brief summary of Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 25: “Cessante vero demum persequentium instantia per Comitis Pictaviensis casum, equum ejusdem militari lancea perfosso.”

[345] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 8847-64.

[346] Gesta, ii. 68, 69.

[347] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 25.

[348] Cf. Gesta, ii. 69, Gir. Cambr., l.c., W. Armor., Gesta Phil. Aug., 190, and Philippis, lib. iii. ll. 735-8 (the poet gives the date of the meeting by implication in l. 748), and Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, ii. lxvii, note 2.

[349] Gesta, ii. 70, 71.

[350] Hist. G. le Mar., l. 8957.

[351] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 26.

[352] Ib., 25; Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9068-78.

[353] Gesta, ii. 69.

[354] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9245-8.

[355] The statement in Gesta Ricardi (Gesta Hen. et Ric., ii.), 71, that he met the funeral procession on the way and accompanied it “flens et ejulans” is at variance with a better authority for the details of the burial—the Hist. G. le Mar.—and is improbable for geographical reasons.

[356] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9294-8.

[357] Disfigured, “sicut perhibent qui presentes fuerunt et viderunt,” by a bleeding from the nostrils which began as soon as Richard entered the church and ceased only when he went out again; Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 28.

[358] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9299-303.

[359] Gir. Cambr., De Instr. Princ., dist. iii. c. 28.

[360] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9304-41.

[361] Gilbert Pipard, a well-known officer of the Exchequer; Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9347-51.

[362] The Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9350-1, says Richard bade the envoys themselves “Si pernez garde de ma terre E de trestot mon autre afaire”; but the English chroniclers know nothing of this, and one of them distinctly asserts that Eleanor was made regent: “Alienor regina ... statuendi quae vellet in regno potestatem accepit a filio. Datum siquidem est in mandatis regni principibus et quasi sub edicto generali statutum ut ad reginae nutum omnia disponerentur.” R. Diceto, ii. 66. (This passage is immediately followed by the one about “aquila rupti fœderis.”) Cf. Gesta, 74.

[363] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9361-408. Châteauroux, it will be remembered, had been in Philip’s hands since June 1187.

[364] His very identity is a puzzle; under Henry II we read of Stephen de Matha, Stephen de Marzay, Stephen of Turnham, and Stephen “de Turonis,” all bearing the title of “Seneschal of Anjou,” and it is doubtful whether or not all these names represent the same man. In the passage now before us the Gesta (71) call him “de Turonis,” but it is clear from other evidence that this means Turnham, not Tours. The Gesta continue (71, 72): “Et uxorem filii praedicti Stephani propter ignobilitatem mariti ab ipso separari fecit [rex] et alii marito dari; minans se hujusmodi nobilium puellarum vel viduarum cum ignobilibus contubernia sua auctoritate secundum leges separare.” Is it possible that Stephen’s crime consisted in having contrived or connived at a ceremony of marriage, without licence from the Crown, between his son and some royal ward who had been committed to his custody? Such a marriage, if merely formal and if the parties were under age, might be voidable by a sentence of the king. According to R. Devizes, 6, 7 (ed. Stevenson), Richard brought Stephen over with him, in chains, to England, and kept him in prison at Winchester till he redeemed himself by a heavy fine. This fine may have been either for the misdemeanour which I have suggested, or in remission of a vow of Crusade—which vow, however, Stephen fulfilled after all.

[366] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.

[367] R. Diceto, ii. 66, 67.

[368] Gesta, 73; R. Diceto, ii. 67.

[370] Date from Gesta, 73, 74; place from R. Howden, iii. 4.

[372] Ib.; R. Howden, iii. 4; Gerv. Cant., i. 450, 451 (who seems to have got confused between Auvergne and Berry); and Rigord, 97, whose statement is of course conclusive as to the final terms so far as the lands are concerned.

[373] Gerv. Cant., i. 451.

[375] Ib., 457; Gesta, 75, with a self-contradictory date.

[376] Gerv. Cant., l.c., says Southampton; the Gesta, l.c., say Portsmouth.

[377] Gerv. Cant., i. 453, 454, 457; R. Diceto, ii. 67; cf. Gesta, 76. The first gives date August 14, the second August 15.

[379] Gesta, 74, 75.

[380] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.

[382] Gerv. Cant., i. 457.

[383] The Itin. Ric. Reg., 142, says “die S. Ægidii receptus est cum processione apud Westmonasterium, et die tertia sequenti ... unctus est in regem.” Gervase, i. 457, dates the arrival in London September 2. The Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9568-9, says, “A mult riche procession Fu receuz dedenz Seint Pol,” without any date.

[384] Itin., 142; Gerv. Cant., i. 457; R. Diceto, ii. 68; Gesta, 78, 79.

[385] Ralph de Diceto, who as dean of S. Paul’s handed the ampulla to the Primate, the bishop of London, to whom this duty belonged, being absent through illness. R. Diceto, ii. 69.

[386] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 68, Gesta, 81, 82, and R. Howden, iii. 10.

[387] Gesta, 82; R. Howden, iii. 10, 11.

[388] Estoire de la Croisade, ll. 205, 206; the writer implies that he was there.

[390] Gesta, 83; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 1.

[391] W. Newb., l.c.

[394] W. Newb., l.c.

[396] So at least we should gather from the treasurer’s apparent inability to find any money for King Henry’s funeral; Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9173-200. Of course we must remember that Richard himself had emptied that treasury two years before. This again implies that he was at that time short of money in Aquitaine, and therefore not likely to have since then accumulated anything in the way of a reserve fund there.

[397] Gesta, 76, 77; R. Howden, iii. 8.

[398] “Nongenta millia librarum,” Gesta, 77; “Thesaurus ... magnus valde, excedens numerum et valentiam centum millia marcarum” (= £66,666 13s. 4d.), R. Howden, l.c. There can be little doubt that the Gesta’s figure is, as Dr. Stubbs suggested it might be, an error for “nonaginta.” We know that the royal revenue for the financial year which ended three weeks after Richard’s coronation amounted to somewhat less than fifty thousand pounds (£48,781; Stubbs, preface to Gesta, ii. xcix).

[399] R. Howden, iii. 17.

[401] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.

[402] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 10.

[403] Gesta, 90, 91.

[404] R. Howden, iii. 13.

[405] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; cf. R. Devizes, 10.

[406] R. Howden, ii. 302.

[407] R. Devizes, 7.

[408] Gesta, 87; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4. Elsewhere the former writer includes Ranulf among the officers whom he represents as compulsorily deposed and held to ransom: “Eodem mense Ricardus Rex deposuit a balliis suis Ranulfum de Glanvilla justiciarium Angliae et fere omnes vicecomites,” etc. (Gesta, 90); but his own statement in p. 87, confirmed by William of Newburgh, suffices to contradict this so far as Glanville is concerned.

[409] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 4.

[410] Epp. Cantuar., 329.

[411] Gesta, 87, 90, 91; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxviii, note 3.

[412] Gir. Cambr., Vita Galfr., lib. i. c. 6 (Opera, iv. 374).

[413] R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 9.

[414] Gesta, 72; see also Stubbs’s preface to R. Howden, iii. xxiv, note 1.

[416] See John Lackland, 26-8, and the references there given in footnotes.

[417] The gross total of the ferms and other profits of the six counties for the year ending Michaelmas 1189 was £4,081 9s. 8d.; Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, iii. xxv, note 4. The greater part of this sum was derived from the miscellaneous profits, which were liable to fluctuation. The £500-£600 worth of other lands given to John would no doubt insure that this fluctuation should not reduce John’s total annual income from his English possessions (irrespective of his Gloucester earldom and honour) below £4000. Stubbs (l.c., xxiv, note 2) thought that “this promise of £4000 a year in land was not regarded as fulfilled by the bestowal of the counties.... We find that in 1195 when John had been removed from the government of the counties, his income from the Exchequer was £8000 (Howden, iii. 286), but ... in Angevin money and only equal to £2000 sterling.” Howden’s words in the place here cited are “Eodem anno Ricardus rex Angliae remisit Johanni fratri suo omnem iram et malivolentiam suam, et reddidit ei comitatum de Moretonia et honorem de Eia, et comitatum Glocestriae, cum omni integritate eorum, exceptis castellis; et pro omnibus aliis comitatibus et terris suis dedit ei rex per annum octo millia librarum Andegavensis monetae.” To me these words seem to imply nothing definite as to the relative value of the counties and other lands of which John had been deprived and of the money compensation given to him in their stead in 1195. Nor does Bishop Stubbs’s further remark, “However, it is clear that whilst he was in charge of the counties he was receiving a large sum from the Exchequer; R. Devizes, 26,” seem to me borne out by the passage to which he here gives a reference, and which runs thus: “Colloquium primum inter comitem de Moretonio, fratrem regis, et cancellarium, de custodiis quorumdam castellorum et de pecunia comiti a fratre de scaccario concessa, apud Wintoniam ad Laetare Hierusalem” (i. e., March 4, 1191).