Richard the Lion Heart | Project Gutenberg

[1047] Ann. Colon. Max., Pertz, xvii. 796; cf. Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115 (Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli). “Allein die Glaubwürdigkeit dieser Zeugnisse unterliegt gegründeten Bedenken”; Kellner, Ueber die deutsche Gefangenschaft Richards I, 44.

[1048] “Applicuit in insula de Cuverfu, et navigavit usque ad tres galeas quas vidit ex opposito in Rumania,” R. Howden, iii. 185. Roger dates the arrival at Corfu, “infra mensem post diem illum,” i. e. the day on which Richard left Acre, October 9. R. Coggeshall, whose information, being partly derived from the chaplain Anselm who accompanied the king on his voyage, is probably more accurate, says (53) that Richard had been six weeks at sea when he turned back to Corfu; so the date would be about November 20. According to the same writer (l.c.) the pirate galleys numbered two, not three as Roger says.

[1049] Twenty-one according to R. Howden, l.c. One of the party was Anselm, who told the story to R. Coggeshall, l.c.

[1050] R. Howden, l.c.

[1051] Document, dated 1598, from the archives of Ragusa, “ex lib. Div. Cancellariae n. 98,” in Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, vi. 90.

[1052] Appendini, Notizie istorico-critiche sulle antichita, etc., di Ragusa, i. 272; Farlati, vi. 90.

[1053] “It is not Great Britain who will fail in keeping her promises. Great Britain has known us ever since Richard received our hospitality and built for us a most beautiful church on the spot where our ancestors had saved him from shipwreck on his way back from the Crusade,” said M. Vesnitch, the representative of Serbia, at a great public meeting in Paris on January 27, 1916.

[1054] None of the authorities for Richard’s voyage mention more than one landing after his departure from Corfu. “Accidit ut ventus, rupta nave sua in qua ipse erat, duceret eam versus partes Histriae, ad locum qui est inter Aquileiam et Venetiam, ubi rex Dei permissione passus naufragium cum paucis evasit,” says the Emperor in a letter to Philip of France (R. Howden, iii. 195). Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky, 114; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.) says, “Ad Polam, civitatem Ystriae, ad litus fertur et applicare cogitur.” R. Diceto (ii. 106) makes the voyage end “in Sclavonia”; R. Coggeshall (54), “in partes Sclavoniae, ad quandam villam nomine Gazaram”; R. Howden (iii. 105) “prope Gazere apud Raguse.” This word Gazere, misunderstood as intended to represent Zara, has puzzled commentators, but is explained by Wilkinson (Dalmatia and Montenegro, i. 301) as being a corruption of an Arabic word meaning “island”; that is, it really stands here for Lacroma. The final landing was evidently not anywhere in “Slavonic parts” but in Istria, as the German authorities say; and of these the Emperor is the most likely to be correct.

[1055] The narrative which we are here following—that of Richard’s chaplain and companion Anselm, as reported by R. Coggeshall, 53-5—calls this personage merely “Dominus provinciae illius, qui nepos extitit Marchisii.” That he was the Count of Gorizia appears from the Emperor’s letter in R. Howden, iii. 195.

[1056] R. Coggeshall, 54, 55.

[1057] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.

[1058] It comprised, besides Baldwin de Béthune and the king, “Magister Philippus regis clericus, atque Anselmus capellanus qui haec omnia nobis ut vidit et audivit retulit, et quidam fratres Templi,” R. Coggeshall, 54; and also, as appears later (ib., 55), some personal attendants of Richard’s.

[1059] Letter of Henry VI, in R. Howden, iii. 195.

[1060] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 104; Stubbs, R. Howden, iii. introd. cxl.

[1061] Letter of Henry VI, l.c.

[1062] R. Coggeshall, 55. The name of the town, Freisach, and that of the German lord, Frederic of Pettau, are not given by Ralf; they are supplied from the Emperor’s letter, l.c. Ralf makes the final halting-place and the scene of the capture Vienna itself: “ad quandam villam nomine Ginanam in Austria prope Danubium”; but the German accounts, including that of the Emperor, which must have been derived from Leopold of Austria, make it a neighbouring village: “juxta Wenam in villa viciniori, in domo despecta,” letter in R. Howden, l.c.; “in quoddam diversorium juxta Viennam civitatem,” Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 334); “circa Wiennam ... in vili hospitio,” Ansbert (ed. Dobrowsky, 114, R. Howden, iii. cxl). Kellner (Gefangenschaft Richards I, 29), calls the place “Erdberg, Dörfchen bei Wien”; but I can find no authority for the name. Trivet, to whom he seems to refer for it, says “in civitate Wienna” (ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 148).

[1063] R. Coggeshall, 56. R. Howden, iii, 186, says Richard was captured asleep; according to Otto of S. Blaise (Pertz, xx. 324), he was roasting meat on a spit, thinking by this servile employment to avoid recognition, and was betrayed by a splendid ring which he had forgotten to remove from his finger. This account of the matter has a somewhat characteristic air; but it may have been founded on a confused version of Ralf’s story of the ring offered to Mainard of Gorizia. W. Newburgh’s narrative of Richard’s adventures (lib. iv. c. 31) seems to be based on the Emperor’s letter, which says nothing about the circumstances of the capture; the details and speeches added by William are obviously mere rhetoric of his own. The date is given by R. Coggeshall as December 21, by R. Diceto (ii. 106) as December 22.

[1064] Ann. Marbac., Pertz, xvii. 165; Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 112; R. Howden, iii., introd. cxl.

[1065] R. Coggeshall, 56.

[1066] Letter in R. Howden, iii, 195.

[1067] Ann. Magn. Reichensberg., Pertz, xvii. 520.

[1068] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115; R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.

[1069] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.

[1070] Agreement in Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 115-19, and Stubbs’s R. Howden, iii. introd. cxli.-iii.

[1071] Kellner, Gefangenschaft, 39.

[1072] Rigord, 116; Gesta Ric., 192-9, 203, 204, 227-30.

[1073] Ansbert, ed. Dobrowsky, 78; for date see Kellner, 18, note 2. Milan does not appear in Philip’s itinerary in Gesta Ric., unless in the form of “Cassem Milan” (230), and this identification is doubtful, as the name comes between “Monte Bardon” and “Furnos,” i. e. Farinovo. Some of the other names, however, seem to be out of geographical order.

[1074] This probably referred to Richard’s dealings with Saladin.

[1075] R. Howden, iii. 198, 199; cf. W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33. The date of the assembly is from R. Diceto, ii. 106. The place was probably Spire; Richard was there on Easter day and on the Tuesday in Easter week (March 28 and 30), Epp. Cantuar., 362-4. The statement of the Emperor’s poetical panegyrist, Peter of Eboli, that Richard offered to clear himself by ordeal of battle, a proposal by which Henry was so greatly impressed in his favour that he set him at liberty (Petr. Ansolini de Ebulo Carmen, apud Muratori, Rer. Ital. Scriptt. xxxi. 142), is probably a misunderstanding or a poetical embellishment of Richard’s offer to stand to right in the court of his French overlord.

[1076] R. Diceto, ii. 106, 107.

[1077] Stubbs, note to R. Howden, iii. 210.

[1078] R. Coggeshall, 58. Ralf says Richard was imprisoned “primo Treviris, deinde Warmatiae.” Treviris here seems to mean Triffels, as there is no other indication that Richard was ever at Treves; we shall see that he was at Worms later. Ralf is perhaps the best authority as to the character of Richard’s imprisonment, as he probably heard about it from Anselm the chaplain, who may very likely have been, for a time at least, one of the attendants imprisoned with their sovereign. William of Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 37, lib. v. c. 31) is less to be trusted on the subject. Two German chroniclers say that Richard was kept “sub honorabili custodia” (Ann. Aquicinct., Rer. Gall. Scriptt., xviii. 456), “in libera clausus custodia” (Andr. Marchian., ib. 557); but the chief German historian of the time, Otto of S. Blaise, says “Henricus [regem] Wormatiam asportari vinctum ferroque onustum praecepit” (Pertz, xx. 324).

[1079] R. Howden, iii. 197, a letter which shows that Savaric was at the Imperial court before February 28.

[1080] Récits d’un ménéstrel de Reims, 41-4.

[1081] R. Howden, iii. 198.

[1082] Ib., iii. 194.

[1083] Gesta, 230, 236.

[1084] Ib., 236. The actual “treaty of Messina” is not extant; all we know about it is from Philip’s charter, dated March 1190 (i. e. before March 25, 1191, the French year beginning on Lady Day), proclaiming certain conditions on which he and Richard had made “a firm peace.” This charter, in its existing form, contains no mention of either Eu or Aumale, nor of any conditions about the restitution of Aloysia or of her dower-lands. No original copy of it is known; it is printed in Fœdera, I. i. 54 from a fragment of an English Treasury Roll dating from the second half of the thirteenth century. Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 126, 127.

[1085] Gesta, 236, 237.

[1086] R. Howden, iii. 204.

[1087] Ib., iii. 205.

[1088] “Imperator vero iratum animum ac ferocem erga regem diutius conservans nullatenus eum in praesentia sua convocare vel alloqui voluit.” R. Coggeshall, 58.

[1089] R. Coggeshall, 58.

[1090] French version in Leroux de Lincy, Recueil de Chansons Historiques, i. 56-9, and Sismondi, Literature of S. Europe, trans. Roscoe, i. 152 et seq.; Provençal version in Raynouard, Choix de Poésies des Troubadours, iv. 183 et seq.

[1091] I. e. Philip of France.

[1092] “Mes compaignons cui j’amoie e cui j’aim, Ces dou Cahiul” (“Chacu,” Sismondi) “e ces dou Porcherain” (“Percherain,” Sismondi). Leroux de Lincy translates “Ceux de Cahors et ceux du Perche.” Feeling doubtful about the identification, I have tried to turn the difficulty by using a vague phrase and omitting the names altogether.

[1093] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 33.

[1094] Gerv. Cant., i. 517.

[1095] He landed in England on April 20; ib., 516.

[1096] “Honeste circa ipsum Imperatorem moram facimus.”

[1097] Letter of Richard, in R. Howden, iii. 209, 210.

[1098] R. Howden, iii. 206.

[1100] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 206; R. Coggeshall, 61, 62; Rigord, 123, 125, 126; Chron. Rothomag., Rev. Gall. Scriptt., xvii. 358; Ann. Aquicinct, ib., xviii. 546. The dates are conflicting, and Rigord’s chronology, in particular, is even more confused than usual just here; the other writers, especially the English ones, are safer guides.

[1101] “Misit nuncios ad Imperatorem cum infinita pecunia, rogans attentius regem Angliae utpote hominem suum ei mitteret liberum, vel diutius retineret incarceratum.” Gerv. Cant., i. 516.

[1102] Richard was there on May 26 and June 8; Epp. Cant., 364, 365; cf. Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324.

[1103] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 37, says 24th; R. Howden, iii. 212, says 25th.

[1104] R. Howden, iii. 214; date, June, Vita Alb. Leod., Pertz, xxv. 168.

[1105] “Totius Alemanniae generalis conventus magnates solos comprehendens,” says R. Diceto, ii. 110, who dates it July 5; but R. Howden, l.c., is obviously more accurate.

[1106] William Brewer and Baldwin de Béthune. These latter arrived on June 28; R. Howden, l.c.

[1107] R. Howden, iii. 214, 215.

[1108] R. Howden, iii. 215, 216.

[1109] John—whose restoration, however, was conditional; see R. Howden, iii. 217, 218;—the count of Angoulême, who in 1192-3 had stirred up another revolt in Aquitaine, invaded Poitou, and been made prisoner by its seneschal; see Chron. S. Albini, a. 1192, and R. Howden, iii. 194;—and the counts of Perche and Meulan, who had supported John’s intrigues in Normandy.

[1110] Treaty in R. Howden, iii. 217-20.

[1111] Letters in R. Howden, iii. 226, 227.

[1113] R. Howden, iii. 228-32.

[1114] Letter of Archbishop Walter of Rouen in R. Diceto, ii. 112, 113.

[1115] R. Howden, iii. 233.

[1116] See Note V at end.

[1117] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 113.

[1118] R. Howden, iii. 233, 234.

[1119] R. Howden, iii. 234; cf. Gislebert of Mons, Pertz’s small edition, 250. The duke of Suabia was the emperor’s brother; the marquis of Montferrat was Boniface, brother and successor to Conrad. To the duke of Louvain Richard also granted the lands in England which had belonged to count Matthew of Boulogne, father of the duke’s wife, “ipsique duci contra comitem Flandriae et Hanoniae et marchisum Namurcensi auxilium promisit, ita quod saltem tantum comiti Flandriae et Hanoniae guerram facerent quod comes nequaquam domino regi Franciae auxilium ferre posset” (Gislebert, l.c.). The Flemish chronicler adds: “Conventiones tamen eorum in nulla parte fuerunt observatae; nec mirum, cum rex Angliae nemini unquam vel fidem vel pactum servasset, nec omnes illi nominati cum quibus foedus firmaverat conventiones suas observare consuevissent” (ib., 250, 251). This is rather too sweeping, in view of the conduct of the allies in after-years. One of them at least, Boniface of Montferrat, received three hundred marks “de feodo suo” and ten marks as a present from Richard in 1197 (Stapleton, Norman Exchequer Rolls, ii. 301).

[1120] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 41.

[1121] R. Howden, iii. 235.

[1122] R. Coggeshall, 62.

[1123] “Circa horam tertiam recessit a portu de Swine, et in crastino post horam diei nonam applicuit in Angliam apud Sandicum portum, diei dominica tertio idus Martii”; i. e. he left Swine on Saturday March 12, and reached Sandwich on Sunday the 13th, R. Howden, iii. 235. R. Diceto, ii. 114, makes it a week later, Sunday March 20; but that this is wrong is clear from Gervase of Canterbury, i. 524, where we are told that Richard was received at Canterbury on the 13th, having landed at Sandwich on the 12th. Ralf of Coggeshall, 62, says he landed “secunda hora diei,” on the Sunday after S. Gregory’s day, i. e. on March 13.

[1124] R. Diceto, ii. 114; cf. R. Coggeshall, 63.

[1125] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.

[1126] R. Coggeshall, 63.

[1127] It was seemingly on the march to Nottingham that, according to a marginal note in two MSS. of Ralf of Coggeshall, “Robertus Brito a rege captus, jussit ut fame in carcere interiret” (63). I have failed to discover who this man was, or what he had done to incur such a doom.

[1128] R. Howden, iii. 237-9.

[1129] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42.

[1130] R. Howden, iii. 239.

[1131] Hist. G. le. Mar., ll. 10236-64.

[1132] R. Howden, iii. 240; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 114.

[1133] R. Coggeshall, 63.

[1134] R. Howden, iii. 240, 241.

[1135] For details see R. Howden, l.c., 241.

[1137] R. Howden, iii. 242, 243, 245.

[1138] Ib., 247, 248.

[1139] “Ut regnum innovaret.” Gerv. Cant., i. 524.

[1140] Gerv. Cant., i. 524, 525.

[1141] Ib., 524-6; cf. R. Howden, iii. 247, 248.

[1142] Gerv. Cant., 525.

[1143] “Tantaque solemnitas facta est propter praecedentis captionis contumeliam,” ib., 526, “In octavis Paschae Wintoniae regni diademate fulgidus, detersa captivitatis ignominia, quasi rex novus apparuit,” W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 42. “Rex Ricardus ... consilio procerum suorum, licet aliquantulum renitens, coronatus est,” R. Coggeshall, 64. It is hard to conceive what “ignominy” or “contumely” could be thought to attach to the mere fact of Richard’s captivity, or why Richard should have been “reluctant” to revive a time-honoured custom which would surely have appealed with double force to his well-known love of pomp and splendour and of grand Church services, unless its revival was urged upon him for some special reason whose cogency he was unwilling to admit. On the other hand, it is curious that R. Diceto (ii. 114) says nothing about this crown-wearing beyond the bare statement that the king “in octavis Paschae regni diadema suscepit de manibus Huberti Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi.”

[1144] R. Howden, iii. 249, 250.

[1145] R. Howden, iii. 251. R. Diceto, ii. 114, and Gerv. Cant., i. 527, give the same date.

[1146] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 10431-52.

[1147] Cf. Rigord, 127, R. Diceto, ii. 115, with date Whitsun Eve (May 27), and R. Howden, iii. 252.

[1148] Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 10,353-518, R. Howden, Rigord, ll.cc., and R. Diceto, ii. 115, 116.

[1149] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 10491-550.

[1150] Chron. S. Albini, a. 1192; under this year all the events of 1192-5 are lumped together in this Chronicle.

[1151] R. Howden, iii. 252.

[1152] R. Diceto, ii. 116.

[1153] Ib., ii. 117; R. Howden and Chron. S. Alb., ll.cc.

[1154] R. Howden, iii. 252, 253.

[1155] Rigord, 127; Chron. Turon., a. 1194, with date June 11. This spoliation was only temporary; on November 11 of the same year Richard, at Alençon, restored into the hands of the legate all that he had taken from the canons and other clerks of S. Martin at Tours. R. Diceto, ii. 122.

[1156] R. Diceto, ii. 117; R. Howden, iii. 252.

[1157] R. Diceto, l.c.

[1158] Ib.; R. Howden, l.c., giving date; Chron. S. Alb., a. 1192.

[1159] R. Howden, iii. 253; cf. R. Diceto, ii. 116.

[1160] R. Howden, iii. 253, 254; cf. Rigord, 127, who gives the date, June 14.

[1161] R. Howden, iii. 254, 255.

[1162] Cf. ib., iii. 255, 256; R. Diceto, ii. 117; W. Newb., lib. v. c. 2; Rigord, 129, and Chron. S. Alb., a. 1192. William the Breton’s description of the captured documents (Philippis, lib. iv. ll. 530-68) is surely a poetical exaggeration. The date is from R. Diceto, who says the affair took place thirty-seven days after Philip’s retirement from Verneuil.