[418] Or Geddington; R. Diceto, ii. 69. Geddington was a royal manor; the king lodged in his own house there, but the council meetings were held in Pipewell Abbey, which stood within the boundaries of the manor. Monasticon, v. 431.

[419] Stubbs, note to Gesta, 97.

[420] Ann. Cambr., 57.

[421] Gesta, l.c.

[422] Ib., 92, 93; R. Howden, iii. 20. Richard was in London November 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 (Stubbs, Gesta, 97, note 3). According to the Gesta, the person who swore for Richard was William de Mandeville; according to R. Howden, William the Marshal. If the former be right the date must be before November 14, for on that day William de Mandeville died; R. Diceto, ii. 73.

[423] Itin., 145.

[424] Ib.; Gerv. Cant., i. 474. The precise dates are November 26 to December 5; Stubbs, notes to Gesta, 97, 98.

[425] Gesta, 97, 99.

[426] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 72, and Gerv. Cant., i. 474.

[427] R. Diceto, ii. 72, 73; cf. Gesta, 99.

[428] Chron. Mailros, a. 1157.

[429] Gesta Hen., i. 96, 98.

[430] Ib. 351; W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5.

[431] R. Howden, ii. 338, 339.

[432] Gesta Hen., ii. 44.

[433] £6,666 13s. 4d., W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 5; R. Diceto, ii. 72. The Gesta, 98, make the sum 10,000 marks sterling, i. e., £6,600. The charter in which Richard’s concessions to William are embodied contains no mention of money.

[434] Fœdera, I. i. 50. Date, December 5, 1189.

[435] “Pactiones quas ... Henricus rex per novas cartas et per captionem suam” (i. e., Willelmi) “extorsit.”

[436] William had been captured, with some sixty of his men, when the bulk of the force with which he was besieging Alnwick was out of reach, by a body of several hundred English knights who had ridden to the place through a thick mist which prevented them from seeing where they were and the Scots from discovering their approach till a sudden clearing of the air surprised both parties alike by revealing their presence to each other, and the little band of Scots, though they made a splendid fight, were easily surrounded. W. Newb., lib. ii. c. 33; Jordan Fantosme, ll. 1731-1839.

[437] This is the date of Richard’s charter as printed from an original copy in Fœdera, I. i. 50. “He,” says Richard, “became our liegeman for all the lands for which his ancestors were liegemen of our ancestors, and he swore fealty to us and our heirs.” See also Gesta, 104.

[438] Gesta, 100.

[439] R. Diceto, ii. 73, makes the date December 14 and the landing-place Gravelines; the Gesta writer, 101, says “xi^o die Decembris, in vigilia S. Luciae,” which is self-contradictory, S. Lucy’s day being December 13. For “in vigilia S. Luciae” Roger of Howden (iii. 28) substitutes “feria secunda,” which would be right for December 11, 1189. Both these latter writers say that Richard landed at Calais, and that the Count of Flanders met him on his landing and escorted him “cum gaudio” into Normandy.

[440] At Bures, according to Gesta, 104; at Lions, according to Itin., 145.

[441] Est. de la Guerre Ste., ll. 247-50.

[442] The proclamation inserted by R. Diceto, ii. 73, 74, is dated Nonancourt, December 30; the Gesta, 104, places the meeting at the Ford of S. Rémi. This was the usual place for conferences, and is close to Nonancourt.

[443] The Gesta, 105, and R. Diceto, ii. 74, say that S. John Baptist’s day was the date fixed at the second conference, which was held on January 13 (Gesta, l.c.). R. Diceto, however, elsewhere (ii. 77) gives Midsummer as the date fixed at the third conference, which he says took place on the day on which the Queen of France died, or was buried; it is not clear which he means. She died on March 15; Rigord, 97. This is clearly the conference at which the Estoire, ll. 259-86, and Itin. 146, tell us the kings received the news of her death (she died unexpectedly, in childbirth), and agreed to set out each from his own dominions on S. John Baptist’s day and meet at Vézelay for the final start together on the octave. The Estoire and Itinerarium place this conference “at Dreux.” Richard was at Nonancourt on March 14 (Fœdera, I. i. 51); the Gué St. Rémi is midway between these two towns and was no doubt the real meeting-place.

[444] Gallia Christ., i. 988.

[445] Richard, Comtes., ii. 263.

[446] R. Diceto, ii. 73. R. Coggeshall, 26, says December 12, but there are several indications that Mandeville was dead before Richard left England.

[447] Gesta, 101. Roger of Howden, iii. 28, says: “Hugo Dunelmensis et Willelmus Eliensis Episcopi remanserunt in Anglia summi justiciarii”; but the Gesta and R. Devizes (11) distinctly imply that at this time William of Ely, though practically viceroy, was not titularly chief justiciar. He was, however, added to the number of assistant justiciars (Gesta, l.c.), and probably this is what Roger really means.

[448] Gesta, 105, 106. R. Howden, iii. 32.

[449] Gesta, 106.

[450] After March 27; see Fœdera, I. i. 51.

[451] Gesta, l.c.

[452] Ib.

[453] R. Howden, iii. 8.

[454] There is one rather curious-looking case of a ship which the king seems to have originally bought for £100, given to the Knights of the Hospital (in England), and bought back from them for £9. Archer, Crusade of Richard I, 13. But I do not feel quite sure of the meaning of the passage.

[455] See extract from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. II in Archer, Crusade of Richard I, 11-13. A captain’s pay was double that of a common sailor; ib. The total of ships enumerated in this passage, exclusive of smacks, whose number is not given, is forty-seven. The total of the fleet when it set out was 107 or 108 “besides some others which followed”: Est., ll. 311-13, Itin. 47.

[456] Gesta, 110, 111; R. Howden, iii. 36, 37. These ordinances are dated “apud Chinonem.” As in both the writers who record them they are inserted after some events which took place in England in June, and as Richard is known, from several sources, to have been at Chinon on June 20, this is the date usually assigned for their issue. But it cannot be correct; for both our authorities say that the fleet sailed “statim post Pascha” (March 25), and that a part of it entered the Bay of Biscay on Ascension day (May 6); Gesta, 116; R. Howden, iii. 42. These ordinances, and the sailing order issued at the same time with them, must therefore have been issued before Easter. We have seen that Richard met Philip on the Norman border on March 15, the Thursday before Palm Sunday; after that, we have no notice of his whereabouts till April 17, when he was at Chinon (Richard, Comtes, ii. 263, 264). In all likelihood he had been there for a month, almost ever since his meeting with Philip.

[457] Gesta, 111, 116. The Itin., 147, and Est., ll. 307-10, represent this order for immediate departure as issued much later still, from Tours, just before the king himself set out thence for Vézelay, i. e., at the end of June; but as has been shown in the preceding note, this is quite incompatible with the date at which the fleet actually sailed.

[458] Endowment charter, dated Luçon, May 5 (1190); witnesses, Peter Bertin, seneschal of Poitou (appointed not before February 21, 1190, Richard, Comtes, ii. 263, 265), Stephen de Marzay, Brother Miles the duke’s almoner, Ralf FitzGeoffrey his chamberlain, and John of Alençon his vice-chancellor, who sealed the deed. Richard, Comtes, ii. 265; from Tardif, Archives du Poitou (Trésor des Chartes), xi. 408.

[459] Gesta, 99. The earlier queen referred to is there called Matilda, but as the writer calls Stephen’s wife “Alicia,” it is possible that he has reversed the names and that the other queen whom he intended to mention was not Maud of Scotland but Henry’s second wife, Adeliza of Louvain.

[460] “Gourfaille, canton de Pissotte, Vendée,” Richard, Comtes, l.c., from Archives du Poitou, i. 120.

[461] Gall. Christ., ii. instr. 388. On the 7th he was at S. Jean d’Angély; Richard, Comtes, ii. 266, from Arch. Hist. de Saintonge, xxviii. 140.

[462] June 6; letter in R. Diceto, ii. 83.

[463] R. Howden, iii. 35. Roger calls this man William of “Chisi”; Richard, Comtes, ii. 263, says “Chis, Hautes Pyrénées,” and seems to date this expedition earlier, between February 21 and April 17; but he gives no reason for so doing, and it seems therefore better to accept the sequence of events given by Roger, with which Richard’s presence at Bayonne on June 6 fits in very well.

[464] Stapleton, Norm. Exch. Rolls, i. cxlv.

[465] R. Devizes, 15.

[466] R. Howden, iii. 36—miscalling the archbishop “William” as usual.

[467] Ib., 37. There is documentary evidence of Richard’s presence at Tours on June 27, 1190; Teulet, Layettes, i. 158. Probably he was there several days earlier, as otherwise Philip would hardly have had time to visit him there and then go to Paris before setting out for Vézelay.

[468] Est., ll. 324-34.

[469] On June 27 Richard went from Tours to Montrichard (Fœdera, I. i. 48) by way of Azay (on the Cher, close to Tours); Itin., 149. In the next four days he passed through Selles (on the Cher) and La Chapelle [d’Anguillon, in Berry] to Donzy, in the Nivernais (Itin., l.c.), where he was on July 1 (Fœdera, l.c.). He may have gone from Donzy to Vézelay on that day. He was certainly at Vézelay on July 3 (Monast. VI. i. 327). Rigord (i. 99) says: “Feria quarta post octavas S. Johannis Baptistae” [= Wednesday, July 4] “cum rege Anglorum Ricardo apud Vizeliacum venit [rex Francorum],” which looks as if the kings had met on the way and arrived together; but if so, Rigord’s date is, as we have just seen, at least a day too late. The Gesta Ric. (111) say the two kings stayed at Vézelay two days, and the Itinerarium (151) enumerates seven places through which they passed “distinctis dietis” from there to Lyons (M. Gaston Paris accepts this passage in the Itinerarium as authentic, believing it to be derived “from an official source”). This would mean their leaving Vézelay on July 6 and reaching Lyons on the 13th; but from certain words in the Gesta it seems possible, and I think even probable, that the true dates are the 3rd and the 10th. The whole sentence in the Gesta runs thus: “Ibi [sc. apud Vizeliacum] moram fecerunt [reges] per duos dies in octavis S. Iohannis Baptistae.” Strictly interpreted, this should mean “within the octave”; it might mean “beginning on the octave,” i. e., July 1-3; but it cannot correctly represent July 4-6. Either it is a blunder, or Rigord is wrong in dating Philip’s arrival on the 4th. I venture to think the latter alternative the likelier of the two, as the English chroniclers appear to have followed their sovereign’s travels with great care, while Rigord is certainly far from being a specially accurate chronologist.

[470] Est., ll. 365-75; Itin., 150.

[471] Gesta, 111.

[472] Est., ll. 377-8.

[473] The stages are given in Itin. 151. See note 7 to p. 117 above.

[474] Est., ll. 413-28; Itin., l.c.

[475] Est., ll. 429-36.

[476] It is said to have numbered 100,000; Est., l. 419, Itin., l.c.

[477] Gesta, 112; Est., ll. 449-65; Itin., 152.

[478] Est., ll. 466-90. “Le Rogne, l’eve crestee,” l. 414.

[479] Ib., ll. 491-7.

[480] The two kings having agreed to separate their forces because they found them too numerous to travel in one body; Gesta, 112.

[481] Itin., 152.

[482] Ib., Est., ll. 499-510.

[483] Itin., l.c.

[484] We get this date from the Gesta, 112, where it is said that Richard stayed at Marseille eight days and left on August 7. The author of the Itinerarium enumerates (153) fifteen places which he says “we went through” (transivimus) from Lyons to Marseille; but he does not (as in his account of the journey from Vézelay to Lyons) specify how many days’ travelling these stages represent; and moreover, he is evidently here not describing Richard’s journey at all, for he ends “apud Marsiliam, ubi moram fecimus per tres hebdomadas; postea mare intravimus, scilicet die proxima post festum Assumptionis Beatae Mariae,” i. e., August 16; that is, he represents himself as having reached Marseille on July 26. Supposing his narrative to be authentic, he must therefore have travelled from Lyons to Marseille not with the king, but in advance of him. On the other hand, if he was an impostor and not a Crusader at all, his evidence on this point is of no account. In either case, however, it is probable that the route he gives would occupy about a fortnight; Richard may therefore have set out from Lyons on July 17 or 18.

[485] R. Howden, iii. 51.

[486] Ib., 42.

[487] Epp. Cantuar., 328.

[488] Gesta, 15.

[489] The date of the death, November 1189, is given in Gesta, 101, 102.

[490] “Mare nauseans,” R. Devizes, 16.

[491] Ib.

[492] Gesta, 112. R. Diceto, ii. 84, says “in vigilia S. Laurentii,” i. e., August 9; but in the Gesta the date is the first of a whole series evidently derived from an official record of some kind, so it seems best to follow this authority.

[493] Gesta, l.c.

[494] Gesta, 112-14.

[495] R. Diceto, ii. 84.

[496] Gesta, 114, 115.

[497] Ib., 124.

[498] Gesta, 115-22. 124; R. Howden, iii. 42-50. 53, 54.

[499] Gesta, 124; R. Diceto, ii. 84.

[500] Rigord, 106.

[501] Placed at his disposal by the new king of Sicily, Tancred; Gesta, l.c.

[502] Est., ll. 573-80; Itin., 156.

[503] Gesta, 124, 125.

[504] Est., ll. 588-93.

[505] Gesta, 126; R. Howden, iii, 55. These and R. Diceto, ii. 84, give the date, September 23.

[506] Gesta, l.c.

[507] Est., ll. 594-7.

[508] Gesta and R. Howden, ll.cc.

[509] The settlement is given at length in Gesta, i. 169, 170.

[510] Cf. Gesta, 132, 133, and R. Devizes, 19. According to the former authority the cups and dishes were of gold, according to the latter of silver.

[511] R. Devizes, 18.

[512] Gesta, 132.

[513] R. Devizes, 19. The terrino was a small gold coin weighing twenty grains.

[514] Gesta, 126; date confirmed by R. Diceto, ii. 85.

[515] Est., ll. 549-58.

[516] Est., ll. 615-19.

[517] R. Devizes, 18.

[518] Cf. R. Devizes, 20, Est., ll. 547-58, 607-24, and Gesta, 138, 139.

[519] Cf. R. Devizes, 19, R. Diceto, ii. 85, Gesta, 127, and R. Howden, iii.

[520] It seems to have been really another beacon-tower or pharos, placed on the island—like the tower on the Sicilian mainland opposite Scylla, where Richard had first landed—to give warning of the proximity of Charybdis; see Gesta, 158.

[521] Gesta, 127; R. Devizes, 19.

[522] Cf. Gesta, l.c., and Est., ll. 627-44; the date is from the former. R. Devizes, 22, seems to make it October 2, but his whole account of the matter is fantastic, while that of the Gesta is in close accord with the eye-witness Ambrose, the poet of the Estoire.

[523] Gesta, l.c.

[524] Ib., 138; see Archer’s note on them, Crusade of Richard I, 31.

[525] Gesta, 128; R. Devizes, 22, 23; Est., ll. 649-53.

[526] Est., ll. 654-67.

[527] Gesta, 128; for Hugh the Brown cf. R. Diceto, ii. 85, Est., ll. 717-20, Itin. 161, and R. Devizes, 23.

[528] Est., ll. 683-5.

[529] Ib., ll. 721-36.

[530] Ib., ll. 689-701, 779-84.

[531] Gesta, 129.

[532] “Li reis fud un des premerains Qui osast entrer en la vile; Puis i entrerent bien dis mile,” Est., ll. 801-4. The Itinerarium, 163, says: “Primus civitatem intravit ipse dux et praevius,” and describes the entrance as effected “per posternam quandam quam rex Anglorum, secunda die adventus sui ad cautelam futurorum circuiens cum duobus sociis, quasi neglectam a civibus perpenderat” (162, 163). This is quite in accord with the character of Richard, who as we shall see later was in the habit of doing his own scouting; and the attack could hardly have been so successful unless some preparations for it had been made beforehand. Still, as the writer of the Itinerarium does not in this part of his work speak as an eye-witness, and the one writer who does so speak—Ambrose—does not give this detail, I prefer to place it only in a footnote. Richard of Devizes, 23, says the town gates were broken down “admoto ariete dicto citius.” But he was certainly not there, and his whole account of the doings at Messina is too full of long speeches to be altogether trustworthy.

[533] “Plus tost eurent il pris Meschines C’uns prestres n’ad dit ses matines,” Est., ll. 809, 810. Cf. Itin., 163.

[534] R. Devizes, 24.

[535] Est., ll. 811-18.

[536] Ib., ll. 823-61; R. Howden, iii. 58. Howden’s phrase “rex Angliae signa sua deposuit” probably means only that Richard’s banners were placed beneath Philip’s in token of the feudal relation between the kings.

[537] Est., ll. 844-8.

[538] Ib., ll. 827-30.

[539] Itin., 166.

[540] Gesta, 129.

[541] Ib., 132.

[542] Est., ll. 867-86; Itin., 165, 166.

[543] Est., ll. 913-32; cf. Itin., 167.

[544] Gesta, 133.

[545] Ib., 138.

[546] Est., ll. 937, 938.