Meanwhile, however, Philip Augustus had assembled the host of France, and led it as far as the Poitevin border.[497] With Philip’s personal appearance on the scene of action, John knew that his own successes were at an end. Neither Almeric of Thouars, nor the many barons in the English host who had taken the oath of allegiance to Philip, would fight against that monarch in person. While John went on to secure his retreat over sea by another visit to Niort and La Rochelle,[498] therefore, negotiations were set on foot; and when he came back to Thouars once more, on October 26, it was to proclaim a truce which had been made between himself and Philip, to last from October 13 for two years. By its terms each sovereign was to retain during that period the homage and services of all those who had attached themselves to him during the recent war; and any disputes which might arise about the allegiance of such persons were to be decided by the judgement of four barons named, two to represent each of the kings.[499] Trade, and intercourse of every kind, between the dominions of John and Philip was to be free, save that no man, unless he were either a priest or a “known merchant,” might go to the court of either without special licence, if he were a subject of the other. Thirteen sureties swore to the truce on behalf of John, and thirteen on behalf of Philip, who further undertook that it should be kept by four other barons whose oaths John had wished to have on his side, but had apparently been unable to obtain.[500] Philip’s sureties were headed by “the count of Britanny,” a title which can only represent Constance’s widower, Guy of Thouars, and thus shows that Arthur’s death was now, at any rate, regarded as certain. The first of John’s sureties was Guy’s brother, Almeric, the viscount of Thouars, whose action had for several years past generally turned the scale between the rival sovereigns in Poitou, and who by the terms of the truce was pledged to his present allegiance for the next two years at least. The other sureties on both sides were nearly all of them barons of Aquitaine;[501] those of the Angevin counties seem for the most part to have stood aloof. It is clear, however, that John had secured a firm hold on the southern provinces, and to a considerable extent regained a hold upon Poitou. On the whole, therefore, his expedition had been successful. The best proof of its success lies in Philip’s readiness to accept such a truce, without making any attempt to regain the ground which he had lost in Poitou, though he was actually in the land with an army at his back. As for John, he was going home to his island realm to prepare for a fight of another kind, and with an adversary of a character very different from that of Philip Augustus.
FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]
- [262] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 98, and R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 88.
- [263] “Quod praedictus dux redderet unicuique illorum jus suum,” R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 88.
- [264] Stubbs, pref. to W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. xxvi., xxvii.
- [265] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 90.
- [266] R. Coggeshall, pp. 99, 100.
- [267] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 89, 90.
- [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.
- [271] Mag. Vita S. Hugon. p. 293.
- [272] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 140.
- [273] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 88, 89.
- [274] [Ib.] p. 91.
- [275] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 140.
- [276] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166.
- [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.
- [278] R. Howden, [l.c.]
- [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.
- [280] R. Coggeshall, p. 100.
- [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.
- [282] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 92, 93.
- [283] Itin. a. 1.
- [284] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 93. See the treaty with Flanders—dateless, but probably executed on this occasion—in Rot. Chart. p. 31.
- [285] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 95.
- [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.”
- [287] Rigord, c. 129.
- [288] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 95.
- [289] Rot. Chart. p. 30.
- [290] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 96.
- [291] Itin. a. 1.
- [292] R. Howden, [l.c.]
- [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.
- [294] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12471–86.
- [295] Rot. Chart. [l.c.]
- [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.
- [297] Itin. a. 1.
- [298] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12473–4.
- [299] Itin. a. 1.
- [300] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 97. Rigord, c. 129, says S. John’s Day.
- [301] Itin. a. 1.
- [302] Rigord, c. 131.
- [303] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 106, 107; R. Coggeshall, pp. 100, 101.
- [304] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 92.
- [305] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 107.
- [306] He landed at Portsmouth on February 24, Ann. Winton. a. 1200.
- [307] R. Coggeshall, p. 101. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 107.
- [308] R. Howden, [l.c.] John was at York March 25 to 28, Itin. a. 1.
- [309] R. Coggeshall, pp. 102, 103. John was at Porchester on April 28, and at Valognes on May 2, Itin. a. 1.
- [310] Rigord, c. 132. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 115, whose chronology is less sound.
- [311] Cf. the treaty of 1200 in R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 148–51, and Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 79, 80, with that of 1195 in Foedera, [ib.] p. 66.
- [312] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 150.
- [313] R. Coggeshall, p. 101.
- [314] Rigord, c. 132. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 115.
- [315] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 125. Dates from Itin. a. 2.
- [316] Itin. a. 2. For the reception at Bordeaux see Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 11956–8.
- [317] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 167.
- [318] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119.
- [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.
- [320] Innoc. III. Epp. l. v. No. 50.
- [321] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 97.
- [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.
- [325] Rot. Chart. p. 97.
- [326] [Ib.] pp. 58, 59.
- [327] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 170.
- [328] R. Coggeshall, p. 103.
- [329] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 11984–6. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 119.
- [330] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 120. For date see Memorials of S. Edmund’s, vol. ii. p. 8.
- [331] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 139; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 170; R. Coggeshall, p. 103 (with a wrong date).
- [332] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 140–3.
- [333] [Ib.] p. 156.
- [334] Itin. a. 2.
- [335] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 160.
- [336] Will. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 110. Cf. R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 160, 161.
- [337] Rot. Chart. p. 102.
- [338] [Ib.]
- [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.
- [342] Rot. Chart. p. 102.
- [343] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 160, 161.
- [344] [Ib.] p. 163.
- [345] [Ib.] pp. 163, 164.
- [346] Itin. a. 3.
- [347] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 161.
- [348] Innoc. III. Epp. l. vi. Nos. 163, 167.
- [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.”
- [350] Innoc. III. Epp. l. vi. No. 167.
- [351] Itin. a. 3.
- [352] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 176.
- [353] [Ib.]
- [354] W. Brito, Philipp. l. vi. vv. 106–43.
- [355] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93. Hubert crossed on December 14, R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 173.
- [356] Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 5, 6.
- [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.
- [360] R. Coggeshall, p. 136.
- [361] Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 110. Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93, and Innoc. III. Epp. l. vi. No. 167.
- [362] R. Coggeshall, p. 136.
- [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.
- [364] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 93.
- [365] Innoc. III. Epp. [l.c.]
- [366] Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 94; Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 112; and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167.
- [367] Innoc. III. Epp. [l.c.]
- [368] The war had begun before May 11, Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 10.
- [369] Cf. Rigord, c. 138; W. Armor. Philipp. l. vi. vv. 204–20, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167.
- [370] See Itin. a. 3, 4.
- [371] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 167; for dates cf. Itin. a. 4. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 94, places this siege too late.
- [372] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 115.
- [373] Chron. Britann. a. 1201, in Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, preuves, vol. i. cols. 6, 106.
- [374] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 7.
- [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.
- [379] R. Coggeshall, p. 137.
- [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.
- [386] Rer. Gall. Scriptt. vol. xviii. p. 799.
- [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.
- [389] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12536–50.
- [390] [Ib.] vv. 12595–606. On the name see M. Delaborde’s note, Œuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, vol. ii. p. 282.
- [391] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12569–84; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 95.
- [392] R. Coggeshall, p. 139. Date from Chron. S. Albini, a. 1202.
- [393] Itin. a. 4.
- [394] R. Coggeshall, [l.c.]
- [395] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 171.
- [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.
- [397] R. Coggeshall, pp. 139–41.
- [398] Itin. a. 4.
- [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.
- [401] W. Armor. Philipp. l. vi. vv. 552–66.
- [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.
- [406] Chron. S. Albini Andeg. a. 1203.
- [407] Rigord, c. 140; wrongly dated.
- [408] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12675–720.
- [409] Cf. Rigord, c. 140; R. Coggeshall, p. 143; and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 172.
- [410] Itin. a. 5.
- [411] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 171, 172.
- [412] Innoc. III. Epp. l. vi. No. 163; dated Anagni, Oct. 29, 1203.
- [413] [Ib.] No. 167 (same date).
- [414] [Ib.] Nos. 68, 69.
- [415] [Ib.] No. 163.
- [416] W. Armor. Gesta P. A. cc. 117, 118. The dates of the siege of Alençon come from Itin. a. 5.
- [417] The siege of Château-Gaillard was begun before the end of August. See below, [p. 96].
- [418] Will. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 129; Philipp. l. vii. vv. 739–47.
- [419] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 180.
- [420] Rigord, c. 141; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 122; Philipp. l. vii. vv. 29–140.
- [421] Itin. a. 5.
- [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.
- [426] Itin. a. 5. He was at Dol September 19–22.
- [427] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12721–42.
- [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.
- [429] W. Armor. Philipp. l. vii. vv. 827–9.
- [430] Itin. a. 5.
- [431] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12783–818.
- [432] Cf. Itin. a. 5 and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 173.
- [433] Duchesne, Hist. Norm. Scriptt. p. 1059.
- [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.”
- [435] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 173, 174.
- [436] Rigord, c. 141.
- [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.
- [440] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12934–66.
- [441] [Ib.] vv. 12905–20.
- [442] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 173, 175.
- [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.
- [446] W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 131.
- [447] Duchesne, Hist. Norm. Scriptt. pp. 1057–9.
- [448] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 181. That John was penniless may be inferred from the desertion of his mercenaries.
- [449] Rigord, c. 142. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 146, and Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 98.
- [450] R. Coggeshall, p. 146.
- [451] Ann. Waverley, a. 1204.
- [452] R. Coggeshall, p. 146.
- [453] [Ib.]; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 181.
- [454] R. Coggeshall, p. 147.
- [455] John was in London January 16–21, 1205 (Itin. a. 6). This is evidently the date of the council.
- [456] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 96, 97.
- [457] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 50.
- [458] [Ib.] pp. 51, 52.
- [459] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 97, 98. For date see Itin. a. 6.
- [460] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 55.
- [461] Chinon, Loches, Thouars, Niort and La Rochelle.
- [462] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12934–66.
- [463] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 96.
- [464] As a reason for Anet being chosen by Philip as the place of meeting, the Marshal’s biographer says:
- “Quer s’ost out semonse por veir
Por aler Caem aseeir” (vv. 12977–8). - But this is an anachronism: Caen had been surrendered to Philip in May or June 1204 (see above, [p. 102]), and we are now in spring 1205.
- [465] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 12967–13087. See the Marshal’s charter to Philip in Cal. Doc. France, vol. i. p. 475.
- [466] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 182.
- [467] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 54.
- [468] Itin. a. 7.
- [469] R. Coggeshall, p. 148.
- [470] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 96, 97; Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 55.
- [471] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 13103–270.
- [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.
- [473] R. Coggeshall, pp. 152, 153.
- [474] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 154; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 98; and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 182, with Itin. a. 7.
- [475] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [476] R. Coggeshall, p. 154.
- [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.
- [481] W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 135.
- [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.
- [483] R. Coggeshall, p. 154.
- [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.
- [485] 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.
- [487] Cf. R. Wendover, [l.c.], and Itin. a. 8.
- [488] R. Wendover, [l.c.] Unluckily the letter does not seem to be extant.
- [489] Itin. a. 8.
- [490] Rigord, c. 147; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 138.
- [491] August 30, Itin. a. 8.
- [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.
- [494] W. Armor. [l.c.]
- [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.
- [496] Itin. a. 8.
- [497] Rigord, c. 147; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 139.
- [498] Itin. a. 8.
- [499] Ralf (of Lusignan), count of Eu, and Hugh, viscount of Châtelheraut, for Philip; Savaric de Mauléon and William of Chantemerle for John.
- [500] William des Roches, Maurice of Craon, William of Guerches, and Geoffrey of Ancenis. This promise seems to have been made by Philip in person.
- [501] See the truce in Duchesne, Hist. Norm. Scriptt. pp. 1061–2, and Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 95.
CHAPTER IV
KING JOHN
1206–1210
Sed processu temporis mollities illa in tantam crudelitatem versa est, ut nulli praedecessorum suorum coaequari valeret, ut in sequentibus patebit.
Gerv. Cant. ii. 93.
1205
The first business wherein John had an opportunity of exercising the free kingship which he had, as he said, acquired by the death of Hubert Walter, was the appointment of Hubert’s successor. Immediately after Hubert’s funeral the king spent six days at Canterbury.[502] He “talked much and graciously with the monks” of Christ Church about the choice of a new archbishop, and even hinted that one might be found in their own ranks. At the same time, however, he took possession of a valuable set of church plate bequeathed by Hubert to his cathedral;[503] and before leaving Canterbury he issued orders that the election of the primate should be made on November 30 by the monks and the bishops of the province conjointly.[504] A party in the chapter at once resolved to vindicate its independence both against the bishops, whose claim to share in the choice of their metropolitan was always opposed by the monks, and against the king, whose prerogative of designating the candidate to be chosen was in theory regarded by monks and bishops alike as uncanonical, though in practice they had been compelled to submit to it at every vacancy for a hundred years past at the least. The younger and more hot-headed members of the chapter privately elected their sub-prior Reginald, enthroned him at dead of night, and hurried him off to seek confirmation from the Pope, pledging him to secrecy till the confirmation should be secured.[505] The older and more prudent brethren evidently connived at these proceedings without taking part in them. Their policy was to consent to Reginald’s election after the fact, if the Pope’s sanction of it could be obtained; but if this were refused, they could repudiate the election as a matter in which they had had no share. The convent was, however, unlucky in its choice of a champion. Reginald was no sooner across the sea than he began to announce himself publicly as “the elect of Canterbury,” and even to show the credentials which he had received from his brethren for the Pope. Of course this news soon reached England, and caused a great commotion in high places there. The bishops, indignant at being tricked out of their share in the election, despatched an appeal to Rome. The monks sent a counter-appeal;[506] but to them the wrath of the king was far more terrible than the wrath of the bishops, or even the possible wrath of the Pope. Long before the appeals could be decided, they sent to John a deputation charged with a communication containing no allusion whatever to Reginald, but simply requesting that the convent might be permitted to choose for itself a pastor. John received the deputies graciously and assented to their request; then, taking them aside, he “pointed out to them that the bishop of Norwich” (John de Grey) “was attached to him by a great intimacy, and the only one among the prelates of England who knew his private affairs,” wherefore it would be greatly for the advantage of king and kingdom if he became archbishop—a consummation which the king begged the deputies would do their utmost to secure. He sent back with them some confidential clerks of his own to assist them in this task, and dismissed them with a promise of bestowing great honour on their convent if it were accommodating in this matter. The result was an unanimous election of John de Grey by the chapter of Christ Church.[507]