Читать книгу John Lackland - Kate Norgate - Страница 6
FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]
Оглавление[1] I.e. Henry II.
[2] The place comes from the prose addition to Robert of Gloucester, ed. Hearne, vol. ii. p. 484; on the date see Stubbs, pref. to W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. xvii.
[3] R. Torigni, a. 1155; Gerv. of Canterbury, vol. i. p. 162.
[4] R. Torigni, a. 1160.
[5] R. Diceto, vol. i. p. 306.
[7] R. Torigni, a. 1159.
[8] R. Torigni, a. 1166.
[9] “Quartum natu minimum Johannem Sine Terra agnominans,” W. Newburgh, l. ii. c. 18. Cf. W. Armor. Philippis, l. vi. vv. 591, 592, who says, addressing John—“Antea quam fato fieres ludente monarcha,Patris ab ore tui Sine-Terra nomen habebas.”The name seems to have been commonly used as if it were a part of John’s proper designation: “Johannes … quem vocant Sine Terra, quamvis multas et latas habet possessiones et multos comitatus,” says R. Torigni, a. 1185. So the writer of the Estoire de la Guerre Sainte: “Johan sanz Terre ot nom li mendres,” v. 179; “Johan sanz Terre, Por qui il ot tant noise e guere,” vv. 101, 102.
[10] Cf. R. Torigni, a. 1169; Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 208, and Robertson’s Materials for Hist. of Becket, vol. vi. pp. 506, 507. According to the writer of this last account, young Henry’s homage to Louis was only for Anjou and Maine, and he adds: “In hac autem honorum distributione Franci regno suo arbitrantur plurimum esse prospectum; eo quidem magis quod cum acerbiori dolore meminerant Henricum filium regis Angliæ regi Francorum pro omnibus hominium fecisse, quando inter ipsum et filiam regis Francorum sponsalia contracta sunt.” But R. Torigni’s account of young Henry’s homage to Louis in 1160, when compared with his account of the settlement in 1169, seems distinctly to imply that the former was for Normandy alone.
[11] Robertson, Materials, vol. vi. p. 507.
[12] “Tradidit ei [i.e. Henrico] Johannem fratrem suum minimum ad promovendum et manutenendum,” Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 7. The charge cannot have been given personally, for though John may have been with his father, the young king was in England.
[13] R. Howden, vol. ii. p. 6.
[14] See Bishop Stubbs’s notes to R. Howden, vol. ii. p. 6, and vol. iii. p. xxiv., note 1.
[15] R. Torigni, a. 1168; Stapleton, Mag. Rot. Scacc. Norm. vol. i. introd. pp. lxiii., cxxiii.
[16] R. Torigni, a. 1171.
[17] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 35.
[18] Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 35–39.
[20] Cf. ib. p. 41, and Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 242.
[21] Cf. Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 77–79; R. Howden, vol. ii. pp. 67–69, and Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 30.
[22] R. Torigni, a. 1175.
[23] Art de Vérifier les Dates, vol. xvii. p. 165.
[24] John and Isabel of Gloucester were cousins in the fourth degree according to the canon law; i.e. they were what is now commonly called second cousins, being both great-grandchildren of Henry I.
[25] Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 124, 125; R. Diceto, vol. i. p. 415, giving the date, September 28, 1176.
[26] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 243.
[27] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 131.
[29] Eyton, Itin. of Henry II. p. 210, from Pipe Roll 1177.
[30] Ib. p. 222, from Pipe Roll 1178.
[31] R. Torigni, a. 1178.
[32] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 221.
[33] Eyton, Itin. Hen. II. p. 226, from Pipe Roll 1179.
[34] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 40. For date see Eyton, p. 246.
[35] Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 304, 305.
[36] Ib. pp. 304, 305, 307, 308.
[37] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 308.
[38] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 21.
[39] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 311.
[40] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 200.
[41] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 199, 200.
[42] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 319.
[43] R. Howden, vol. ii. p. 288.
[44] Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 320, 321.
[46] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 362, 363.
[47] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 336; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 34.
[48] Treaty in Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 102, 103.
[49] Charter in Lyttelton, Henry II. (ed. 1767), vol. iv. p. 295; Song of Dermot (ed. Orpen), vv. 2725–32; cf. Rot. Chart. p. 178. The statement in Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 163 (copied by R. Howden, vol. ii. p. 134) that the service was that of a hundred knights is clearly a mistake.
[50] Song of Dermot, vv. 2617–22.
[51] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 298.
[52] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 277.
[54] Ib. pp. 321–3. Cf. Song of Dermot, vv. 3370 to end.
[55] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 332, 333.
[58] Song of Dermot, vv. 2733–5.
[59] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 339; Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 137, 138. Cf. Four Masters and Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1177.
[60] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 346. Cf. Four Masters and Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1177.
[61] Cf. Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 161 with Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 347.
[62] Defined as extending “towards the Cape of S. Brendan [Knock Brandon] on the sea-coast, and towards Limerick and other parts, and as far as the water near Lismore.” Ware’s Antiquities of Ireland, ed. Harris, p. 194.
[63] Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 162–5.
[64] Cf. Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 172, 173; Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 347, with Mr. Dimock’s note 6; and Rot. Chart. p. 84 b.
[65] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 348. The removal of William Fitz-Audeline from the office of viceroy seems to have involved the displacement of the subordinate officers appointed by him, of whom Richard of London was one.
[66] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 348. Cf. Ware, Antiq. pp. 194, 195.
[67] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 349.
[68] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 350. Cf. note (e) to Four Masters, a. 1182, and Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1182.
[69] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 350, 351.
[70] Dic. Nat. Biog. s.v. “Fitz-Stephen, Robert.”
[71] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 350.
[72] Ware, Antiq. pp. 196, 197.
[73] Cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 353–6, and Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 270.
[74] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 357, 358. Cf. Gesta Hen. l.c., where the date is wrong.
[75] Cf. Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 280, 287, and Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 358.
[76] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 359.
[77] Ib. pp. 359, 360; Four Masters, a. 1185.
[78] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 380.
[79] Four Masters, a. 1185.
[80] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 381.
[81] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 389.
[82] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 339.
[83] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 386; Four Masters, a. 1185.
[84] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 339.
[85] Four Masters, a. 1185.
[87] Four Masters, l.c.; Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1185.
[88] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 392.
[89] In several of John’s Irish charters granted during his father’s lifetime he styles himself simply “Johannes filius Regis”; when he does use a title, it is “Dominus Hiberniae,” or, apparently, in one case (Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd Report, p. 231), “Dux Hiberniae.”
[90] Gesta Hen. vol. i. p. 161.
[92] R. Howden, vol. ii. pp. 306, 307. No such bull is now known, but there seems no reason to doubt the story.
[93] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 346; Gesta Hen. vol. ii. pp. 3, 4; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 47.
[94] Cf. Gesta Hen. vol. i. pp. 350, 361; Four Masters, a. 1186; Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 387, and R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 34, who gives the day of Hugh’s death—July 25—but under a wrong year.
[95] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 346; Gesta Hen. vol. ii. p. 4.
[96] Gesta Hen. vol. ii. p. 4.
[97] Ib. Cf. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 47.
[98] Gesta Hen. vol. ii. p. 6.
[100] Rigord, c. 52 (ed. Delaborde, p. 180).
[101] Ib. Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 369.
[102] Gir. Cambr. vol. viii. pp. 232, 233.
[103] Gesta Hen. vol. ii. p. 9.
[105] R. Howden, vol. ii. p. 362.
[106] Gesta Hen. vol. ii. p. 66.
[107] R. Howden, vol. ii. p. 363.
[108] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 8542–4.
[109] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 369.
[110] Gerald indeed (l.c.) says: “In crastino vero … versus Andegaviam rege properante, fidei tamen sacramentique vinculis senescallo Normanniae Guillelmo Radulphi filio et comite Guillelmo de Mandeville ante constrictis, de munitionibus Normanniae cunctis, siquid de ipso sinistrum fore contigerit, filio suo juniori Johanni reddendis, quanquam tamen et ipse ab eodem, proh dolor! paulo post discesserit.” But it looks very much as if “post” here were a mistake for “ante,” for the whole story indicates that John was not at La Frênaye on the night of June 12. Cf. W. Newb. l. iii. c. 25: “Tunc” (after the flight from Le Mans) “Johannes filiorum ejus minimus, quem tenerrime diligebat, recessit ab eo”; and Gesta Hen. vol. ii. p. 72: “Johannes filius ejus, qui mortis suae occasio, immo causa praecipua fuerat, eo quod illum tempore guerrae, cum capta esset civitas Cenomannis, reliquerat.” These two writers, indeed, taken by themselves, would seem to imply that John’s desertion was open; but Henry’s charge to the two Norman barons, and his subsequent horror at the final discovery of John’s treason, indicate that it was managed with a refinement of duplicity which is really more in accord with John’s character.
[111] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 9077–8.
