[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.