The abbot of Croxton then asked the king where he wished to be buried. “I commend my body and my soul to God and to S. Wulfstan” was John’s reply.[1311] His last act seems to have been the dictation of the fragmentary document which has come down to us as his will. “Being overtaken,” he says, “by grievous sickness, and thus incapable of making a detailed disposition of all my goods, I commit the ordering and disposing of my will to the fidelity and discretion of my faithful men whose names are written below, without whose counsel, were they at hand, I would not, even if in health, ordain anything; and I ratify and confirm whatsoever they shall faithfully ordain and determine concerning my goods, for the purposes of making satisfaction to God and Holy Church for the wrongs I have done them, sending help to the realm of Jerusalem, furnishing support to my sons for the recovery and defence of their heritage, rewarding those who have served us faithfully, and distributing alms to the poor and to religious houses for the salvation of my soul. And I pray that whosoever shall give them counsel and assistance herein may receive God’s grace and favour; and may he who shall violate the settlement made by them incur the curse and wrath of God Almighty and the Blessed Mary and all the saints. First, then, I desire that my body be buried in the church of the Blessed Mary and S. Wulfstan of Worcester. Now I appoint as ordainers and disposers of my will the following persons:—the lord Gualo, by God’s grace cardinal priest of the title of S. Martin, legate of the Apostolic See; Peter, lord bishop of Winchester; Richard, lord bishop of Chichester; Silvester, lord bishop of Worcester; Brother Aimeric of Ste. Maure; William the Marshal, earl of Pembroke; Ranulf, earl of Chester; William, earl of Ferrars; William Brewer; Walter de Lacy; John of Monmouth; Savaric de Mauléon; Falkes de Bréauté.”[1312] Here, without date, signature or seal, the so-called will breaks off abruptly; evidently the testator had not time to complete it. At midnight {Oct. 18–19} a whirlwind swept over Newark with such violence that the townsfolk thought their houses would fall, and in that hour of elemental disturbance and human terror the king passed away.[1313] A monk named John of Savigny, entering the town at daybreak {Oct. 19}, met the servants of the royal household hurrying out laden with everything of their master’s that they could carry. The corpse—for which they had not left even a decent covering[1314]—had meanwhile been hastily embalmed by the abbot of Croxton; John having, it is said, made a grant of his heart, with ten pounds’ worth of land, to Croxton abbey.[1315] The abbot, too, fled as soon as his work was done and his strange relic secured; it was John of Savigny who, at the request of the constable of Newark, kept the last watch beside the body and offered his mass that morning for the soul of the dead king.[1316] The body was then dressed in such semblance of royal attire as could be procured, and the remnant of John’s soldiers—nearly all foreign mercenaries—formed themselves into a guard for its protection on the journey from Newark to Worcester. The grim funeral train, every man in full armour, passed unhindered across England, and John was buried by Bishop Silvester in Worcester cathedral according to his desire.[1317]
Within this tomb lies buried a monarch’s outward form,
Whose inner man’s departure hath stilled war’s raging storm.
Thus may be roughly rendered the opening lines of an epitaph on King John preserved by Roger of Wendover.[1318] The poet’s words are true; John’s death virtually ended the war. From his burial the Marshal, the Legate, and the bishops passed to the crowning of his heir and the publication, in the boy-king’s name, of the Great Charter in a revised form to which Gualo had no hesitation in giving the papal sanction, and which, thus safeguarded, left the revolutionary party no excuse for continuing the struggle. Thenceforth it was idle for Louis and his adherents to pretend that they were fighting for England’s deliverance from bondage; all men could see that they were fighting for her enslavement to a foreign conqueror. The majority of the barons had already become conscious of the blunder, or worse than blunder, which they had committed in calling the stranger to their aid, and were ready now to join in a national movement for his expulsion. His enterprise was doomed to fail when the kingdom ceased to be divided against itself; and the one insuperable obstacle to the healing of its divisions was removed in the person of John. It was John whose very existence had made peace impossible. “Forasmuch as when he came to die he possessed none of his land in peace,” says Matthew Paris, “he is called Lackland.”[1319] John had indeed earned for himself in a new sense the name which his father had given him at his birth; and he had earned it not by blunders in statecraft or errors in strategy, not by weakness or cowardice or sloth, but by the almost superhuman wickedness of a life which, twenty years before its end, a historian of deeper insight than Matthew had characterized in one memorable phrase—“Nature’s enemy, John.”
FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]
- [1097] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 331; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 226.
- [1098] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 156 b.
- [1099] Itin. a. 17.
- [1100] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 226.
- [1101] Hist. des Ducs, p. 157. The date seems to be either September 20 to 22 or October 5 to 6; see Itin. a. 17.
- [1102] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 181 b.
- [1103] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 330, 331. The dates are not quite clear. Roger gives none, but says John laid siege to the castle “on the third day” after the barons entered it; Ralph of Coggeshall, p. 175, says John entered the city on Sunday October 11. But the Itinerary shows that John was on the 11th at Ospring and on the 12th at Gillingham, and he does not date from Rochester till the 13th. I have therefore ventured to suppose that Ralph has given the date of the barons’ arrival by mistake for that of the king’s.
- [1104] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 158, 159.
- [1105] R. Coggeshall, p. 175.
- [1106] See below, [p. 250].
- [1107] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 226.
- [1108] Hist. des Ducs, p. 159.
- [1109] Cf. [ib.] p. 157; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 226; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 330; and R. Coggeshall, p. 176.
- [1110] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1111] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 231 b.
- [1112] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 331. Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 160. One party under Hugh de Boves was wrecked in a storm on the Norfolk coast, September 26; their leader was drowned, so were many others, and a large quantity of money also went down; but the survivors made their way to the king in time to join him at Rochester and help in the siege, Hist. des Ducs, pp. 155, 156; Chron. Mailros, a. 1215; R. Coggeshall, pp. 174, 175; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 332.
- [1113] R. Coggeshall, p. 176.
- [1114] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 226; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 333.
- [1115] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [1116] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1117] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [1118] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 165. It is Matthew alone who gives the name of the leader of the party. His version of the expedition is important, as he—notwithstanding his strong anti-royalist feeling—shows up the cowardice of the barons, and especially of Fitz-Walter, on this occasion, quite as strongly, and is quite as sarcastic upon it, as the royalist Roger of Wendover.
- [1119] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 333.
- [1120] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 226. R. Coggeshall, p. 177, says that John had contrived to prevent some of the northern barons from joining them by means of forged letters purporting to come from Fitz-Walter and his comrades, telling the Northerners that their help was no longer needed.
- [1121] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 227.
- [1122] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 334, 335.
- [1123] Hist. des Ducs, p. 163; R. Wend. vol. iii. p. 335.
- [1124] R. Wend. vol. iii. p. 336.
- [1125] In W. Coventry, [l.c.], John is said to have hanged only one cross-bowman, whom he had had in his service from boyhood. See the names of the knights made prisoners, in R. Wend. vol. iii. pp. 335, 336, Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 241 b, and Rot. Pat. p. 161.
- [1126] Rot. Pat. p. 157.
- [1127] [Ib.] p. 157 b.
- [1128] [Ib.] p. 158.
- [1129] Ann. Dunst. a. 1210.
- [1130] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 225.
- [1131] Louis had inherited the county of Artois from his mother.
- [1132] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 359.
- [1133] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 225, 226.
- [1134] “S’il voloit venir en Engletierre sa cape toursée, il li donroient le règne en boine pais et le feroient seigneur d’eus,” Hist. des Ducs, p. 160. Cf. W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [1135] R. Coggeshall, pp. 176, 177.
- [1136] Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 160, and R. Coggeshall, p. 176.
- [1137] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 160, 161.
- [1138] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 349, 350; Hist. des Ducs, pp. 161, 162. John had granted the earldom of Clare to Robert de Béthune; Hist., [l.c.]
- [1139] Itin. a. 17.
- [1140] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 347.
- [1141] [Ib.] pp. 344–6.
- [1142] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 347. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 177. Ralf substitutes Gerard of Sotteghem for William Brewer; but in R. Wendover, p. 348, Gerard is named among those who accompanied the king.
- [1143] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 348, 350; confirmed by Itin. a. 17.
- [1144] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 348.
- [1145] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 228.
- [1146] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 350.
- [1147] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 359, 360.
- [1148] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 189, note 4. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 178, and Hist. des Ducs, p. 162. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 360, has confused this second French contingent with the first, which had come in November 1215, and seemingly also with a third. See below, [pp. 261, 262].
- [1149] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 349, 358; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 229, and R. Coggeshall, pp. 177, 178.
- [1150] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 349, 352.
- [1151] R. Coggeshall, p. 178.
- [1152] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 349.
- [1153] [Ib.] p. 352.
- [1154] Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.
- [1155] See [footnote 1157] below.
- [1156] Hist. des Ducs, p. 163; date from Itin. a. 17.
- [1157] “Puis s’en ala-il à Wrewic [var. Euerwic] sa cité, qui encontre lui s’iert revelée; si en fist toute sa volenté.” Hist. des Ducs, [l.c.] John was at York on January 4, Itin. a. 17.
- [1158] Itin. a. 17.
- [1159] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 351, 352.
- [1160] R. Coggeshall, pp. 178, 179.
- [1161] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 163, 164. Cf. M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. pp. 641, 642, and Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 172.
- [1162] Hist. des Ducs, p. 164; for dates see Itin. a. 17.
- [1163] Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.
- [1164] Itin. a. 17.
- [1165] Cf. [ll.cc.] and Hist. des Ducs, p. 164.
- [1166] Chron. Mailros and Hist. des Ducs, [ll.cc.]
- [1167] Itin. a. 17.
- [1168] Rot. Chart. p. 219.
- [1169] Itin. a. 17.
- [1170] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 352, 353.
- [1171] February, Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.
- [1172] Rot. Pat. pp. 162, 162 b, 168, 169.
- [1173] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 352.
- [1174] February 29–March 8, Itin. a. 17.
- [1175] Cf. Itin. a. 17, and Hist. des Ducs, p. 165.
- [1176] Cf. [ib.] and R. Coggeshall, p. 179.
- [1177] R. Coggeshall, pp. 179, 180; for dates see Itin. a. 17. The king’s safe-conduct to the French soldiers (names given) from Colchester to London is dated March 24, Rot. Pat. pp. 171 b, 172.
- [1178] Hist. des Ducs, p. 165.
- [1179] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 172 b.
- [1180] R. Coggeshall, p. 180.
- [1181] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 360, who, however, has confused this contingent with the former ones.
- [1182] [Ib.] p. 363.
- [1183] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 354–6.
- [1184] R. Coggeshall, p. 179, mentions its arrival just after the death of Geoffrey de Mandeville, which occurred on February 22.
- [1185] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 357.
- [1186] R. Coggeshall, p. 180.
- [1187] Itin. a. 17.
- [1188] Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 165, and Itin. a. 17.
- [1189] R. Coggeshall, p. 180.
- [1190] Itin. a. 17.
- [1191] Rot. Pat. p. 176.
- [1192] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 260.
- [1193] Rot. Pat. pp. 170, 170 b, 171.
- [1194] [Ib.] p. 172 b.
- [1195] R. Coggeshall, pp. 180, 181.
- [1196] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 175 b.
- [1197] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 229.
- [1198] Rot. Pat. p. 176.
- [1199] [Ib.] p. 179.
- [1200] See Revue historique, vol. xxxii. p. 49, note 2.
- [1201] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 364–7. The version of M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 176, 177, is as M. Petit-Dutaillis says (Louis VIII. p. 95, note), obviously nothing but an oratorical amplification.
- [1202] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 270.
- [1203] [Ib.] p. 270 b.
- [1204] Itin. a. 17.
- [1205] Rot. Pat. p. 178 b.
- [1206] Itin. a. 17.
- [1207] R. Coggeshall, p. 181.
- [1208] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 167, 168. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 181.
- [1209] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 168, 169. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 368, and Ann. Winton. a. 1216, both of which give the same date for Louis’s arrival. R. Coggeshall, p. 181, gives a date which, though self-contradictory, is, I think, meant for the same—“die sabbati post Ascensionem Domini, scilicet xiiii kalendas Junii.” W. Coventry, p. 229, is quite wrong. John had gone on May 19 (Ascension Day) to Folkestone; on the 20th and 21st he was at Canterbury. Itin. a. 17, 18.
- [1210] Hist. des Ducs, p. 169.
- [1211] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 368; W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 229, 230.
- [1212] Ann. Dunst. a. 1215.
- [1213] Hist. des Ducs, p. 170. The assertion of William the Breton, Gesta P. A. c. 221, that John actually did await the attack of the French, and was driven away by their vigorous onset, certainly is, as M. Petit-Dutaillis says (Louis VIII. p. 100), an error. That error is grounded, like the sneering comments of Ralf of Coggeshall (p. 181), the Ann. Winton. (a. 1216), and some later writers, on the mistaken idea that John was on the spot when Louis first landed on the 21st.
- [1214] Hist. des Ducs, p. 170.
- [1215] Rot. Pat. p. 184.
- [1216] Itin. a. 18.
- [1217] Thorne, Gesta Abb. S. Aug. Cant. in Twysden, X Scriptt. cols. 1868–70. The letter as there given is addressed to the abbot and convent of S. Augustine’s, but it was evidently a manifesto of which copies were sent, or intended to be sent, to all the religious houses of note, probably also to the secular clergy, and perhaps to be distributed among the laity as well. The character of Louis’s “case” as set forth in this letter, and in the arguments of his envoys at Rome (R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 371–8), has been sufficiently exposed by M. Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. pp. 75–87.
- [1218] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 170, 171; cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 181, and Ann. Dunst. a. 1216.
- [1219] Thorne, [l.c.] cols. 1864, 1870.
- [1220] Hist. des Ducs, p. 171.
- [1221] Chron. Merton. in Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. p. 514.
- [1222] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 370.
- [1223] Ann. Winton. a. 1216.
- [1224] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 369, 370.
- [1225] Hist. des Ducs, p. 171; W. Coventry, [l.c.]; Liber de Antiq. Legibus, Appendix, p. 202.
- [1226] Hist. des Ducs, [l.c.]; Liber de Antiq. Legibus, [l.c.]
- [1227] Chron. Merton. in Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. p. 514. Cf. Hist. des Ducs, pp. 171, 172; R. Coggeshall, pp. 181, 182, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 368, 369.
- [1228] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 369.
- [1229] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 171, 172.
- [1230] R. Coggeshall, p. 182.
- [1231] Itin. a. 18. This disposes of R. Coggeshall’s story ([l.c.]) that John “cognito ejus adventu, draconem suum deposuit et aufugit.”
- [1232] Ann. Winton. a. 1216.
- [1233] Ann. Waverl. a. 1216.
- [1234] [Ib.] a. 1216. The Ann. Winton. a. 1216 give a wrong date.
- [1235] Cf. Ann. Winton. a. 1216, and Hist. des Ducs, p. 173. Whichever version be the correct one, both alike show that Ralf of Coggeshall ([l.c.]) is wrong in attributing the fire to John himself.
- [1236] “Li grans castiaus le roi,” “le maistre castiel,” Hist. des Ducs, p. 173.
- [1237] [L.c.]
- [1238] Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 174; Rot. Pat. p. 188 b, and Ann. Waverl. a. 1216.
- [1239] Hist. des Ducs, [l.c.] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 182, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231.
- [1240] “Qui tamen cito rediit,” W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231.
- [1241] William of Armorica, Gesta Phil. Aug. c. 222, says that Salisbury changed sides because “ei certo innotuit relatore” that during his own captivity in France his royal brother had made an attempt on the honour of his wife (the well-known Countess Ela). As, however, we shall see that Salisbury “went back” almost as promptly as Albemarle, and the story seems quite unknown to the English chroniclers, its truth may be doubted, though the mere fact that such a story could be told of John with reference to his own sister-in-law illustrates the character for reckless wickedness which he had earned for himself.
- [1242] Hist. des Ducs, p. 174.
- [1243] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 371. Odiham surrendered July 9, Ann. Waverl. a. 1216.
- [1244] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 175–7.
- [1245] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 371, 378–81, Hist. des Ducs, p. 172, and M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 182.
- [1246] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 379.
- [1247] Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.
- [1248] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 379.
- [1249] Rot. Pat. pp. 184 b, 185 b, 186, 186 b, 187 b, 188, 193–5.
- [1250] [Ib.] p. 184. Cf. [ib.] p. 192.
- [1251] [Ib.] pp. 185, 187, 187 b, 188 b, 189, 189 b, etc.
- [1252] [Ib.] pp. 187, 188.
- [1253] [Ib.] p. 185 b.
- [1254] Itin. a. 18.
- [1255] Rot. Pat. p. 191 b; Brut y Tywysogion, p. 293.
- [1256] Itin. a. 18.
- [1257] Rot. Pat. p. 194. Worcester had been surrendered to the younger William Marshal, for Louis, early in July, but was retaken on the 17th by the earl of Chester and Falkes de Bréauté; Ann. Wigorn. a. 1215. The castle, according to Ann. Dunst. a. 1215, was taken by “the old Marshal” at some unspecified date. (In both the Worcester and the Dunstable Annals the history of 1216 is placed under the year 1215.)
- [1258] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 664.
- [1259] Liber de Antiq. Legibus, appendix, p. 202; Ann. Waverl. a. 1216. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 380, gives a wrong date.
- [1260] Hist. des Ducs, p. 177. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 182; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 381, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230.
- [1261] Hist. des Ducs, [l.c.]
- [1262] R. Coggeshall, [l.c.]
- [1263] Hist. des Ducs, [l.c.]
- [1264] Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.
- [1265] [Ib.]; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 382, 383.
- [1266] Widow of John’s old friend Gerard de Camville; see above, [p. 31].
- [1267] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230.
- [1268] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179, relates John’s advance to Reading, which took place on September 6 (Itin. a. 18), and then goes on “Puis vint li rois d’Escoce,” etc.
- [1269] [Ib.]
- [1270] “Fecit [Alexander] ei [i.e. Ludovico] homagium de jure suo, quod de rege Anglorum tenere debuit,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382. “Lendemain fist li rois son houmage à Looys de la tierre de Loonnois,” Hist. des Ducs, p. 179. (M. Francisque-Michel and M. Petit-Dutaillis render the last word “Lennox”; does it not rather represent “Lothian”?) The Chronicle of Melrose, a. 1216, says cautiously, “Alexander rex ... humagium fecit dicto Laodowico, ut dicitur.”
- [1271] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 381, and Hist. des Ducs, pp. 178, 179.
- [1272] Itin. a. 18.
- [1273] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.
- [1274] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and R. Coggeshall, p. 182.
- [1275] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 185; and Ann. Dunst. a. 1215.
- [1276] Itin. a. 18.
- [1277] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382; R. Coggeshall, p. 183; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231; Itin. a. 18; and Rot. Pat. p. 197 b.
- [1278] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382.
- [1279] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.
- [1280] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1281] Itin. a. 18.
- [1282] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 189–190. Cf. Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 667. Matthew gives no precise date; but he implies that it was before Michaelmas; and the Itinerary shows that the only possible date is September 21–22, on the way from Rockingham to Lincoln.
- [1283] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382; for date see Itin. a. 18.
- [1284] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 289; probably one of several small places so called, on the eastern side of the Trent.
- [1285] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and Itin. a. 18.
- [1286] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 381.
- [1287] Cf. [ib.], W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and Itin. a. 18.
- [1288] Itin. a. 18.
- [1289] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 384.
- [1290] R. Coggeshall, p. 183.
- [1291] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232.
- [1292] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 380.
- [1293] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.
- [1294] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 370. The leader’s name comes from Hist. des Ducs, p. 181; M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 655, has corrupted it into “Collingham.” See also Ann. Dunst. a. 1215. On William de Casinghem’s relations with John see Rot. Pat. pp. 185, 186. He figures frequently in the Rolls of the next reign.
- [1295] Rot. Pat. p. 196.
- [1296] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.
- [1297] Ann. Dunst. a. 1215.
- [1298] R. Coggeshall, p. 182. Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 180, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232.
- [1299] R. Coggeshall, p. 183. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231.
- [1300] Rot. Pat. p. 199.
- [1301] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 384; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 190; and R. Coggeshall, pp. 183, 184.
- [1302] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 191. The later legends about the cause of John’s death are not worth notice.
- [1303] R. Wendover, [l.c.], says John left Swineshead “summo diluculo.” The Itinerary shows him there on October 12 and 13, and at Sleaford on the 14th and 15th.
- [1304] R. Coggeshall, p. 183. Louis had raised the siege of Dover only on the 14th, but the truce must have been arranged and the messengers despatched at least a day or two earlier, or the latter could not possibly have overtaken John at Sleaford. They must in any case have travelled with marvellous rapidity.
- [1305] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 191, 192. He relates all this as having occurred on the road from Swineshead to Sleaford, where he makes John die; a characteristic piece of confusion, illustrative of Matthew’s careless way of reading the author on whose work his own is based. The itinerary given by Roger of Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385, is perfectly accurate and perfectly clear.
- [1306] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 668.
- [1307] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385. The long account inserted by Matthew Paris in his Hist. Angl. (vol. ii. p. 193)—not, it is to be observed, in his Chron. Maj.—of John’s forgiveness of the barons and good advice to his heir is evidently intended for the edification of Henry III. and of posterity, and if it has any foundation at all, it is inserted in a wrong place; for it is put after John’s last Communion, whereas the abbot obviously must have insisted upon John’s declaring himself to be in charity with all men (the barons, by implication at least, included) before he gave him the Sacrament.
- [1308] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1309] Baronius, Annales (ed. Mansi), vol. xx. p. 397.
- [1310] Hist. des Ducs, p. 180. Cf. Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 15167–88.
- [1311] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385.
- [1312] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 144.
- [1313] R. Coggeshall, p. 184. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385.
- [1314] R. Coggeshall, [l.c.]
- [1315] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232; M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 668; and Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 194.
- [1316] R. Coggeshall, [l.c.]
- [1317] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 385, 386.
- [1318]
- “Hoc in sarcophago sepelitur regis imago,
Qui moriens multum sedavit in orbe tumultum.” - R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 386.
- [1319] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 191.